Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760525AbYBGKiu (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:38:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755730AbYBGKik (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:38:40 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:38665 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755645AbYBGKij (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:38:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:38:04 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan.Brunelle@hp.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, dgc@sgi.com, npiggin@suse.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86: add support for remotely triggering the block softirq Message-ID: <20080207103804.GE16735@elte.hu> References: <1202375945-29525-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1202375945-29525-5-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <20080207100738.GB7716@elte.hu> <20080207101727.GE15220@kernel.dk> <20080207102534.GB16735@elte.hu> <20080207103136.GG15220@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080207103136.GG15220@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1393 Lines: 29 * Jens Axboe wrote: > > pick up the threaded softirq patches from -rt, those move all > > softirqs processing into kernel threads. I'd suggest to extend those > > via wakeup-from-remote functionality - it fits the construct quite > > naturally. You should also be able to directly observe any > > performance impact of threaded softirq handlers. (and if you find > > any, let me know so that we can make it faster :-) > > I was just considering that, since I knew -rt moved the softirqs into > threads. I'll look into it, but may not post anything until after my > vacation. we should more seriously investigate kernel thread scalability for another reason as well: besides -rt, any generic async IO facility we pick up will likely heavily rely on them. Kernel thread scheduling is quite a bit lighter than user task scheduling [no TLB flushes, etc.] - and if it is still not good enough we could probably accelerate them some more. (and everyone will benefit) irq-context softirqs on the other hand are quite rigid and bring in many atomicity assumptions so they are not as natural to program for. Ingo -- 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/