[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1237990678.7972.1094.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:17:58 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Chetan.Loke@...lex.Com
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ltt-dev@...ts.casi.polymtl.ca, fweisbec@...il.com,
jbaron@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk,
mhiramat@...hat.com, fche@...hat.com, haoki@...hat.com,
t-nishiie@...css.fujitsu.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro
Subject: RE: [patch 3/9] LTTng instrumentation tasklets
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 06:52 -0700, Chetan.Loke@...lex.Com wrote:
> Quick question. I understand this is unrelated to this patch. So I
> apologize in advance.
> Ingo - you mentioned "tasklets are a legacy mechanism". Is there a
> plan to phase them out ? Let me draw a small picture as to what's
> bothering me.
>
> With the SR-IOV support if there are 'N' virtual functions then there
> will be 'N' driver instances(actually N+1, 1 for the PF). If that
> driver drains the responses in the interrupt context then all such
> VF-instances could virtually block everyone else(because SR-IOV guys
> might also have MSI-X enabled).
> So now all such drivers should alter their Rx path.Driver's can queue
> tasklets and can also get the performance they want.
>
> Any suggestions?
Threaded interrupts?
--
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