On 02/27/2016 03:04 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Peter Hurley <pe...@hurleysoftware.com> > Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:29:39 -0800 > >> Not really. softirq raised from interrupt context will always execute >> on this cpu and not in ksoftirqd, unless load forces softirq loop abort. > > That guarantee never was specified.
?? Neither is running network socket servers at normal priority as if they're higher priority than softirq. > Or are you saying that by design, on a system under load, your UART > will not function properly? > > Surely you don't mean that. No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that bypassing the entire SOFTIRQ priority so that sshd can process one network packet makes a mockery of the point of softirq. This hack to workaround NET_RX looping over-and-over-and-over affects every subsystem, not just one uart. HI, TIMER, BLOCK; all of these are skipped: that's straight-up, a bug. Regards, Peter Hurley
