[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0906181047040.32646@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.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 Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 04:21:19PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > The interface is just ugly IMO. You have eventfd_signal() that can sleep,
> > or not, depending on the registered ->signal() function implementations.
> > This is pretty bad, a lot worse than the theoretical us spent in the
> > schedule_work() processing.
>
> I agree. How about the idea of introducing eventfd_signal_from_task
> which can sleep? Does this sound same?
You're basically asking to double the size of eventfd, make the signal
path heavier, make the eventf size bigger, w/out having provided any *real
life* measurement whatsoever to build a case for it.
WAY too much stuff went in by just branding the latest coolest names as
reasons for them.
And all this to remove the wakeup of a *kernel* thread going to run in the
same CPU where the work has been scheduled.
Come back with *replicable* real life benchmarks, and then we'll see what
the best approach to address it will be.
- 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