Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-26,: [question] why not get rid of handle_softirq from schedule()?

# [question] why not get rid of handle_softirq from schedule()?

Tigran Aivazian (tigran@veritas.com)
Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:03:33 +0100 (BST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: David Woodhouse: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"
- Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: Query on UDP Sockets on Linux."
- Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: [question] why not get rid of handle_softirq from schedule()?"
- Reply: Manfred Spraul: "Re: [question] why not get rid of handle_softirq from schedule()?"

Hi guys,

I asked myself - when exactly are the bottom half's handlers executed?
Bottom halves are just globally locked tasklets so the question is really
"when are the tasklets executed?". So, I looked at schedule()'s label
handle_softirq which looked suspiciously similar to the label
handle_softirq in interrupt/syscall return path in entry.S - so I said
"behold, that is it!". Is this correct?

If this is correct, then why do we need to call do_softirq() in
schedule() at all - isn't it enough to just call it on every
interrupt/syscall return?

Regards,
Tigran

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: David Woodhouse: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"
- Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: Query on UDP Sockets on Linux."
- Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: [question] why not get rid of handle_softirq from schedule()?"
- Reply: Manfred Spraul: "Re: [question] why not get rid of handle_softirq from schedule()?"