On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > How about making the softirq thread's priority adjustable? > > But you would have to argue with softirq maintainers about it - and you > say that you don't have time for that. But maybe _you_ do... > > As for coordinating with the softirq maintainers -- whether I want to > > or not isn't the issue. Right now I don't have _time_ to do it. > > > > Alan Stern > > I am wondering - whats the purpose of that patch > 428aac8a81058e2303677a8fbf26670229e51d3a at all? The patch shows some > performance difference, but they are minor, about 1%. > > If you want to call the urb callback as soon as possible - why don't you > just call it? Why do you need to offload the callback to a softirq thread? Please read the Changelog entry for commit 94dfd7edfd5c. Basically the idea was to reduce overall latency by not doing as much work in an interrupt handler. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
