Re: [patch] severe softirq handling performance bug, fix, 2.4.5

[Ingo Molnar]

On Sun, 27 May 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> I mean everything is fine until the same softirq is marked active
> again under do_softirq, in such case neither the do_softirq in do_IRQ
> will run it (because we are in the critical section and we hold the
> per-cpu locks), nor we will run it again ourself from the underlying
> do_softirq to avoid live locking into do_softirq.

if you mean the stock kernel, this scenario you describe is not how it
behaves, because only IRQ contexts can mark a softirq active again. And
those IRQ contexts will run do_IRQ() naturally, so while *this*
do_softirq() invocation wont run those reactivated softirqs, the IRQ
context that just triggered the softirq will do so.

the real source of softirq latencies is the local_bh_disable()/enable()
behavior, see my previous patch.

	Ingo