On 01/04/2019 09.34, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 02:30:48PM +0000, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> I doubt patches 3 and 4 are acceptable, but I'd still like to get >> comments and/or alternative suggestions for making large transfers >> faster. > > I see no problem with this from a framework point of view FWIW, it's > going to be a question of if there's any glitches like you say. I'm not > sure how we can get wider testing/review unless the patches actually get > merged though... I'll leave them for a bit longer but unless someone > sees a problem I'll probably go ahead and apply them. > Thanks! There's one other option I can think of: don't do the interrupts at all, but just busy-wait for the completion of each word transfer (in a cpu_relax() loop). That could be guarded by something like 1000000*bits_per_word < hz (roughly, the word transfer takes less than 1 us). At least on -rt, having the interrupt thread scheduled in and out again easily takes more than 1us of cpu time, and AFAIU we'd still be preemptible throughout - and/or one can throw in a cond_resched() every nnn words. But this might be a bit -rt specific, and the 1us threshold is rather arbitrary. Rasmus