| 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: <45E55664.90407@cybsft.com> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 04:16:04 -0600 From: "K.R. Foley" <kr@...sft.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: v2.6.20-rt1, yum/rpm Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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 > Thanks. -- kr - 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