On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 06:59:14PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > 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. Let's remove it for now and do the conditional thing if anybody misses it. No need to keep around dead code proactively. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
