From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: question about softirqs Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 21:13:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20090513191354.GB19296@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20090512081237.GA16403@elte.hu> <4A09933B.8010606@nortel.com> <874ovpmmdq.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4A0AC9EC.6070908@nortel.com> <20090513141532.GT19296@one.firstfloor.org> <87my9hkrmw.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4A0AE19D.9040509@nortel.com> <20090513170122.GZ19296@one.firstfloor.org> <4A0B19A9.1090206@nortel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andi Kleen , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , David Miller , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Friesen Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:39400 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754602AbZEMTIf (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 15:08:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A0B19A9.1090206@nortel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 01:04:09PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > network packets are normally processed by the network packet interrupt's > > softirq or alternatively in the NAPI poll loop. > > If we have a high priority task, ksoftirqd may not get a chance to run. In this case the next interrupt will also process them. It will just go more slowly because interrupts limit the work compared to ksoftirqd. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org (one.firstfloor.org [213.235.205.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E854DDFF5 for ; Thu, 14 May 2009 05:08:36 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 21:13:54 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Chris Friesen Subject: Re: question about softirqs Message-ID: <20090513191354.GB19296@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20090512081237.GA16403@elte.hu> <4A09933B.8010606@nortel.com> <874ovpmmdq.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4A0AC9EC.6070908@nortel.com> <20090513141532.GT19296@one.firstfloor.org> <87my9hkrmw.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4A0AE19D.9040509@nortel.com> <20090513170122.GZ19296@one.firstfloor.org> <4A0B19A9.1090206@nortel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4A0B19A9.1090206@nortel.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Andi Kleen , paulus@samba.org, Thomas Gleixner , David Miller List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 01:04:09PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > network packets are normally processed by the network packet interrupt's > > softirq or alternatively in the NAPI poll loop. > > If we have a high priority task, ksoftirqd may not get a chance to run. In this case the next interrupt will also process them. It will just go more slowly because interrupts limit the work compared to ksoftirqd. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.