[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070622211032.GA17607@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:10:32 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, matthew.wilcox@...com,
kuznet@....inr.ac.ru
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Convert all tasklets to workqueues
* Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> Note that we also have a lot of inefficiency in the way we do deferred
> processing. Think of a setup where you run a XFS filesystem runs over
> a megaraid adapter.
>
> (1) we get a real hardirq, which just clears the interrupt and then
> deferes to a tasklet
> (2) tasklet walks the producer / consumer queue and then calls scsi_done
> for each completeted scsi command which ends up doing
> raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ);
> (3) block softirq does the heavy lifting for command completion and finally
> calls back into the bio's completion routine
> (4) xfs wants to avoid irq safe locking and thus deferes the command to a
> kthread
i dont understand - why is a tasklet used at all? Why not do it straight
in the BLOCK_SOFTIRQ? Using tasklets there is extra, unnecessary
overhead already.
Ingo
-
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