[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141006072710.GH8971@agordeev.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 08:27:11 +0100
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 5/6] AHCI: Optimize single IRQ interrupt
processing
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 12:16:46PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I think the thing which bothers me is that due to softirq we end up
> bouncing the context twice. IRQ schedules threaded IRQ handler after
> doing minimal amount of work. The threaded IRQ handler gets scheduled
> and again it doesn't do much but basically just schedules block
> softirq to actually run completions which is the heavier part.
> Apparently this doesn't seem to hurt measureably but it's just weird.
Hi Tejun,
That is exactly the point I was concerned with when stated in one of
changelogs "The downside of this change is introduction of a kernel
thread". Splitting the service routine in two parts is a small change
(in terms of code familiarity). Yet it right away provides benefits I
could observe and justify (to myself at least).
> 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 ;)
> --
> 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