[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0906171247120.7891@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
avi@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [KVM-RFC PATCH 1/2] eventfd: add an explicit srcu based notifier
interface
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> > How much the (possible, but not certain) kernel thread context switch time
> > weighs in the overall KVM IRQ service time?
> >
>
> Generally each one is costing me about 7us on average. For something
> like high-speed networking, we have a path that has about 30us of
> base-line overhead. So one additional ctx-switch puts me at base+7 ( =
> ~37us), two puts me in base+2*7 (= ~44us). So in that context (no pun
> intended ;), it hurts quite a bit. I'll be the first to admit that not
> everyone (most?) will care about latency, though. But FWIW, I do.
And how a frame reception is handled in Linux nowadays?
> True, but thats the notifiee's burden, not eventfd's. And its always
> going to be opt-in. Even today, someone is free to either try to sleep
> (which will oops on the might_sleep()), ...
No, today you just can't sleep. As you can't sleep in any
callback-registered wakeups, like epoll, for example.
- Davide
--
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