linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 5/6] AHCI: Optimize single IRQ interrupt processing

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20141006125817.GA18303@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2014 08:58:17 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 5/6] AHCI: Optimize single IRQ interrupt
 processing

Hello, Alexander.

On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:27:11AM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > Why are we bouncing the context twice?
> 
> I *did* consider moving the threaded handler code to the softirq part.
> I just wanted to get updates in stages: to address hardware interrupts
> latency first and possibly threaded hander next. Getting done these two
> together would be too big change for me ;)

I don't think we'd be able to move libata handling to block softirq
and probably end up just doing it from the irq context.  Anyways, as
long as you're gonna keep working on it, I have no objection to the
proposed changes.  Do you have a refreshed version or is the current
version good for inclusion?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/