[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190906185210.GA4260@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:52:11 -0600
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>,
John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] softirq: implement IRQ flood detection mechanism
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:30:57AM -0700, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
> >
> > Ok, so the real problem is per-cpu bounded tasks.
> >
> > I share Thomas opinion about a NAPI like approach.
>
> We already have that, its irq_poll, but it seems that for this
> use-case, we get lower performance for some reason. I'm not
> entirely sure why that is, maybe its because we need to mask interrupts
> because we don't have an "arm" register in nvme like network devices
> have?
For MSI, that's the INTMS/INTMC NVMe registers. MSI-x, though, has to
disarm it in its table entry, and the Linux implementation will do a
posted read in that path, which is a bit too expensive.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists