| To: | andrea@xxxxxxx (Andrea Arcangeli) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: route cache DoS testing and softirqs |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Thu, 8 Apr 2004 17:38:27 +0400 (MSD) |
| Cc: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Olsson), dipankar@xxxxxxxxxx (Dipankar Sarma), davem@xxxxxxxxxx (David S. Miller), linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040401131657.GB18585@dualathlon.random> from "Andrea Arcangeli" at сав 01, 2004 03:16:57 |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > This sounds reasonable. However as a start I was thinking at having > hardirq run only the softirq they posted actively, and local_bh_enable > run only the softirq that have been posted by the critical section (not > from hardirqs happening on top of it). To all that I remember Ingo insisted that the run from local_bh_enable() is necessary for softirqs triggered by hardirqs while softirqs are disabled. Otherwise he observed random delays and redundant scheduler activity breaking at least tux fast path. Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: route cache DoS testing and softirqs, kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: route cache DoS testing and softirqs, Robert Olsson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: route cache DoS testing and softirqs, Andrea Arcangeli |
| Next by Thread: | Re: route cache DoS testing and softirqs, Robert Olsson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |