[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080702090048.2ec99b72@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:00:48 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Avoid bio_endio recursion
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 00:09:22 -0400 (EDT)
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Right, that wont work of course. Completions are typically done through
> > a softirq, so it is not currently done with hard interrupts disabled.
>
> I thought, from hardirq - that's what IDE is doing. And they are called
Even IDE will sometimes complete from a timer on an error.
> And does local_irq_restore() need to execute even more costy "popf" when
> it makes a transition from disabled to disabled state? What's
> local_irq_restore semantics --- is it allowed to use local_irq_restore for
> transition from interrupt-enabled state into interrupt-disabled state?
If you are worried about performance the network layer has _irq variants
of various functions that are faster and can only be called from the
right context (eg kfree_skb_irq), so you could do two versions of that
code.
Alan
--
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