| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070228081132.GA32405@elte.hu> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:11:32 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: "K.R. Foley" <kr@...sft.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: v2.6.20-rt1, yum/rpm * K.R. Foley <kr@...sft.com> wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > i have released the v2.6.20-rt1 kernel, which can be downloaded from the > > usual place: > > > > I have a couple of questions regarding priorities of the softirqs, IRQ > handlers, etc. > > With some exceptions, back in 2.6.18 and prior patches the IRQ threads > were prioritized between 50 and 25 and the most of the softirqs were > prioritized at 1? In newer patches it looks like they are all > prioritized at 50? > > I was just curious what went into making these choices? I am just > trying to better understand these decisions. The basically random order-of-request_irq() prioritization was causing problems (it worked for some but didnt work for others), so i got rid of trying to auto-guess some priority order. Also, now that we've got tools/scripts like set_kthread_prio and rtprio it seemed more consistent to just not attempt to prioritize interrupts and softirqs at all, but to keep them all 'in the middle' of the RT priority range. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists