[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130904123238.GC8726@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 14:32:39 +0200
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] AHCI: Conserve interrupts with
pci_enable_msi_block_part() interface
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:09:54AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 09:55:41AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hmmm.... I've been looking at the code and and a curiosity. Why does
> > multiple MSI support implicitly enabled threaded IRQ handling? Why
> > are those two linked? Also, do you have any numbers to show that this
> > actually is better? Handling the processing off to a thread isn't a
> > light operation.
>
> Also, it probably is a good idea to skip dummy ports when requesting
> irqs from ahci_host_activate(), which BTW should probably be renamed
> to ahci_host_activate_mmsi().
Hmm.. that is actually a great idea. What I am not sure about whether is
a dummy port still can send (spurious?) interrupts? The hardware interrupt
handler would have to be reworked then. Seems as a yet another topic to me ;)
> --
> tejun
--
Regards,
Alexander Gordeev
agordeev@...hat.com
--
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