[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E58A1635-E5E7-4E0F-A231-29239CA2B148@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:30:39 -0800
From: Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, johnpol@....mipt.ru, arjan@...radead.org,
drepper@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org, akpm@....com.au,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, suparna@...ibm.com,
davidel@...ilserver.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3
> The more I think about it, a reasonable solution might actually be to
> use threadlets for disk I/O and pure event based processing for
> networking. It is two different handling paths and non-unified,
> but that might be the price for good performance :-)
I generally agree, with some comments.
If we come to the decision that there are some message rates that are
better suited to delivery into a user-read ring (10gige rx to kevent,
say) then it doesn't seem like it would be much of a stretch to add a
facility where syslet completion could be funneled into that channel
as well.
I also wonder if there isn't some opportunity to cut down the number
of syscalls / op in networking land. Is it madness to think of a
call like recvmsgv() which could provide a vector of msghdrs? It
might not make sense, but it might cut down on the per-op overhead
for loads that know they're going to be heavy enough to get a decent
amount of batching without fatally harming latency. Maybe those
loads are rare..
- z
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists