On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 05:09:46PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: >> For high frequency I/O the overhead of threaded interrupts impacts >> performance. Add an option to make it configurable, with the default >> being hardirq. >> >> A quick out-of-the-box test (i.e. no affinity tuning) shows ~10% random >> read performance at ~20% less cpu. The cpu wins appear to be from >> reduced lock contention. > > Do we need threaded irq at all? Why not just switch to hardirq? > I can't imagine anyone doing high iops storage to also rely on the ability to preempt the irq handler. I'm assuming if someone notices it missing they can scream, but otherwise hardirq seems all around better. NVMe also has this optional via module parameter, but talking to Keith he does not know of anyone using it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
