Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:24:11 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] AHCI: Conserve interrupts with
 pci_enable_msi_block_part() interface
Message-ID: <20130903162411.GA25040@mtj.dyndns.org>
References: <cover.1378111919.git.agordeev@redhat.com>
 <20130903135541.GB10522@htj.dyndns.org>
 <20130903145719.GB14221@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130903145719.GB14221@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 986
Lines: 26

Hello,

On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 04:57:19PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> Multiple MSI support enables threaded IRQ handling, because at the time of
> posting I did not want to intrude into the existing single-MSI codebase while
> multiple MSI/multipe CPU approach gained good numbers (below).

Please separate out threaded IRQ support from multiple MSI.

> Besides, the ports interrupt handling moved from the interrupt-disabled
> hardware context to the interrupt-enabled threaded context and also ports
> got per-port locks instead of the single host lock. AFAIR I did not post
> the numbers, but it was something close to no-contention.

Which is a completely separate issue, right?  Let's please not mix the
two.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/