2.4.7 softirq incorrectness.

From: Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Date: Sun Jul 22 2001 - 15:44:10 EST

This current code is bogus. Consider:
        cpu_raise_softirq(this_cpu, NET_RX_SOFTIRQ);

Oops... softirq not run until the next interrupt. So, EITHER:

1) make local_irq_restore check for pending softirqs in as we do for
   local_bh_enable(), and get rid of the wakeup_softirqd() in
   cpu_raise_softirq(). ie. all "exits" from in_interrupt == true are


2) Change the check in cpu_raise_softirq to:
        if (!in_hw_irq_handler(cpu))

   and implement in_hw_irq_handler() on all platforms. Then get rid of
   the test in local_bh_enable().

Please pick one approach or the other, and stick with it! The current
code does half of each, badly. 8(


Premature optmztion is rt of all evl. --DK
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 21:00:16 EST