On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > which corresponds to an 8% slowdown for the threaded IRQ case. So, > tasklets are indeed faster than threaded IRQs. Fair enough. > I've tried to perf it, but... > .... > So, sorry, I'm not going to bother trying to get any further with this. > If the job was not made harder stupid hardware design and kernel > politics, then I might be more inclined to do deeper investigation, but > right now I'm finding that I'm not interested in trying to jump through > these stupid hoops. I'd be very interested in a sched_switch + irq + softirq trace which does not involve PMU hardware for both irqthreads and tasklets, but I can understand if you can't be bothered to gather it. Vs. the PMU interrupt thing. What's the politics about that? Do you have any pointers? > I think I've proven from the above that this patch needs to be reverted > due to the performance regression, and that there _is_ most definitely > a deterimental effect of switching from tasklets to threaded IRQs. I agree that the revert should happen, but I'd rather see a bit more information why this regression happens with the switch from tasklets to threaded irqs. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
