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  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]
Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2014 08:27:11 +0100
From:	Alexander Gordeev <>
To:	Tejun Heo <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 5/6] AHCI: Optimize single IRQ interrupt

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

Alexander Gordeev
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists