Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.development.system > #500 > unrolled thread
| Started by | om <orit.mosko@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-05-21 05:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2013-05-21 14:01 +0100 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.development.system
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: The priority of ksoftirqd and workqueue! om <orit.mosko@gmail.com> - 2013-05-21 05:18 -0700
Re: The priority of ksoftirqd and workqueue! Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2013-05-21 14:01 +0100
| From | om <orit.mosko@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-21 05:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The priority of ksoftirqd and workqueue! |
| Message-ID | <30bf9ac6-0a06-45e3-a8b3-1baa7e008475@googlegroups.com> |
On Sunday, March 13, 2011 3:57:51 PM UTC+2, demiahn wrote: > I use 2.6.32 kernel. > I'd like to know the priority of ksoftirqd and workqueue. > Who's priority is higher between ksoftirqd and workqueue? Did you find the answer? I'm looking for answer to this question too
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-21 14:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87a9no4hdf.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #500 |
om <orit.mosko@gmail.com> writes: > On Sunday, March 13, 2011 3:57:51 PM UTC+2, demiahn wrote: >> I use 2.6.32 kernel. >> I'd like to know the priority of ksoftirqd and workqueue. >> Who's priority is higher between ksoftirqd and workqueue? > > Did you find the answer? I'm looking for answer to this question too According to top-output on a system with a sufficiently recent kernel, the priorities of both 'kinds' of kernel threads are identical.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.development.system
csiph-web