netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: modular net drivers

To: Philipp Rumpf <prumpf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: modular net drivers
From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 20:47:33 -0600
Cc: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20000624194506.B25473@fruits.uzix.org>
References: <20000624093548.A31621@puffin.external.hp.com> <20000623164805.AA5BB8154@halfway> <3954262D.60BDEF41@uow.edu.au> <20000624080106.A25102@fruits.uzix.org> <3954D42A.938A724B@uow.edu.au> <200006241548.e5OFmiC09138@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> <39556E6E.DE0DAA90@uow.edu.au> <20000624194506.B25473@fruits.uzix.org>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Philipp Rumpf writes:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 12:29:02PM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > My patch was quite bogus, of course :(  We can have as many threads as
> > we like spinning and the scheduler will cheerfully timeslice between
> > them.
> 
> Oh ?  I wasn't aware kernel_threads could be rescheduled, unlike
> normal kernel code, and in fact I still don't see how they would.

They can't. Once you're running in the kernel, you can't be pre-empted
by another thread, unless you sleep or otherwise call schedule().
You don't even need to have RT priority to pin a cpu like this.

                                Regards,

                                        Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Current:   rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>