[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070509095302.GA13053@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 02:53:02 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Please revert 5adc55da4a7758021bcc374904b0f8b076508a11
(PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE)
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 06:38:46PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 08:27:34 -0700 (PDT),
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > And no, we should not do it at the device core level. In fact, I don't
> > think we should do it at that level at all.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that the performance problems are at individual device
> > drivers, and that the right solution is to thread at *that* level. Not
> > higher up.
>
> These are two different problems:
>
> 1. Probing taking long for individual device drivers. I agree, this
> should be solved at the driver level.
For your bus perhaps, but not for PCI.
> 2. Sheer volume of devices on a bus. Even if the indivdual probing
> doesn't take long, having all devices probed one after the other may
> take a lot of time. Putting the actual probe on a thread makes it
> possible to run several probes in parallel, thereby cutting probing
> time.
Again, not for PCI, right?
If you want to implement this for your bus type, fine, I have no
objection to that at all, but not for PCI, it's just not worth it.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
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