Re: [PATCH] [IMPORTANT] Re: 2.4.7 softirq incorrectness.

[Ingo Molnar]

> > I think the latency issue was really the fact that we weren't always
> > running softirqs in a timely fashion after they had been disabled by a
> > "disable_bh()". That is fixed with the new softirq stuff, regardless of
> > the other issues.

nope. i observed latency issues with restart + ksoftirqd as well. [when i
first saw these latency problems i basically had ksoftirqd implemented
independently from your patch, and threw the idea away because it was
insufficient from the latency point of view.] Those latencies are harder
to observe because they are not 1/HZ anymore but several hundred millisecs
at most. Plus, like i said previously, pushing IRQ context work into a
scheduler-level context 'feels' incorrect to me - it only makes the
latencies less visible. I'll do some measurements.

	Ingo