Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.linux.development.system > #252

Re: Significance of SoftIRQs and Tasklets

Show all headers | View raw

Ripunjay Tripathi <ripunjay.tripathi@gmail.com> writes:

> While studying Linux interrupt handling I found that Tasklets and
> SoftIRQs are two different methods of performing "bottom half" (lesser
> priority work). I understand this (quite genuine need).
> 
> Difference being, SoftIRQs are re-entarant while a Tasklet is NOT.
> That same SoftIRQ can run on different CPUs while this is NOT the case
> with Tasklets.
> 
> Though I understand this from surface but I fail in understanding the
> requirements of the two features. In what case(s) we may use these
> facilities ?
> 
> Also what do we mean by Tasklets are made upon SoftIRQs ? In one of
> the books I read, in LKML there were debates upon removing Tasklets. I
> got completely confused why one would bring in such a feature ? Some
> shortsightedness (No offense meant) ?
> 
> Any pointers on this will help a lot.

http://lwn.net/Kernel/LDD3/
Chapter 10: Interrupt Handling

Phil
-- 
Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious
belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM.
-- David Melville (on r.a.s.f1)

Back to comp.os.linux.development.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Significance of SoftIRQs and Tasklets Ripunjay Tripathi <ripunjay.tripathi@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 08:55 -0700
  Re: Significance of SoftIRQs and Tasklets Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-21 19:50 +0300
  Re: Significance of SoftIRQs and Tasklets "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-08-22 20:24 +0200

csiph-web