linux-kernel - RE: [patch 3/9] LTTng instrumentation tasklets

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:37:20 -0700
From:	Chetan.Loke@...lex.Com
To:	<peterz@...radead.org>
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

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@...radead.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:18 AM
> To: Loke,Chetan
> 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?
> 

If we truly need to address performance and scalability for the SCSI-subsystem then we need something lightweight.--
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/