[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080207103804.GE16735@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:38:04 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan.Brunelle@...com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, dgc@....com, npiggin@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86: add support for remotely triggering the block
softirq
* Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> > pick up the threaded softirq patches from -rt, those move all
> > softirqs processing into kernel threads. I'd suggest to extend those
> > via wakeup-from-remote functionality - it fits the construct quite
> > naturally. You should also be able to directly observe any
> > performance impact of threaded softirq handlers. (and if you find
> > any, let me know so that we can make it faster :-)
>
> I was just considering that, since I knew -rt moved the softirqs into
> threads. I'll look into it, but may not post anything until after my
> vacation.
we should more seriously investigate kernel thread scalability for
another reason as well: besides -rt, any generic async IO facility we
pick up will likely heavily rely on them. Kernel thread scheduling is
quite a bit lighter than user task scheduling [no TLB flushes, etc.] -
and if it is still not good enough we could probably accelerate them
some more. (and everyone will benefit) irq-context softirqs on the other
hand are quite rigid and bring in many atomicity assumptions so they are
not as natural to program for.
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