On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 14:16 -0800, Dan Williams wrote: >> Looks like everyone is guilty: >> >> [ 422.765336] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 3 NET_RX ffffffff813f0aa0 >> ... >> [ 423.971878] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 4 BLOCK ffffffff812519c8 >> [ 423.985093] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 6 TASKLET ffffffff8103422e >> [ 423.993157] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 7 SCHED ffffffff8105e2e1 >> [ 424.001018] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 9 RCU ffffffff810a0fed >> [ 424.008691] softirq loop took longer than 1/2 tick need_resched: > > /me kicks himself for not printing the actual duration.. :-) > >> As expected whenever that 1/2 tick message gets emitted the softirq >> handler is almost running in a need_resched() context. > > Yeah.. that's quite expected. > >> So is it a good idea to get more aggressive about scheduling ksoftrrqd? > > Nah, moving away from softirq more like. I'll put moving the > load-balancer into a kthread on the todo list. And it looks like > everybody else should move to kthreads too. I seem to recall this running into resistance (but maybe things have changed in the last few years)? https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/29/155 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
