[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyOS_MYH6aD1Xkbc9kvgmxmM2mgE4ji-USEWQLhA1oHiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 08:34:50 +0900
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>> Hardware-interrupts during kernel are actually fairly common under
>> network-intensive loads, even outside of idle (but idle is admittedly
>> likely *the* most common one). Many network loads are fairly
>> kernel-intensive.
>
> For network workloads we can arbitarily coalesce interrupts or just use NAPI
> to lower the costs. No need to optimize network interrupts too much.
BS. Lots of network loads are latency-criticial, to the point that
people sometimes actually turn off coalescing. But even with
coalescing, it doesn't do crap for ping-pong kinds of loads that are
not "interrupt storm from tons and tons of separate packets", but
"lots of individual packets that are data-dependent", so you don't
have new ones coming in while processing old ones.
Ask Andy L. He had numbers. Interrupt overhead was quite big for him.
And you ignored the real issue: special-casing idle is *stupid*. It's
more complicated, and gives fewer cases where it helps. It's simply
fundamentally stupid and wrong.
Linus
--
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