lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] per-interrupt stacks - try 2

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, David Howells wrote:

> > per-CPU per-IRQ i mean, of course. It's a basic performance issue, on
> > SMP we do not want dirty IRQ stacks to bounce between CPUs ...
>
> Do you have benchmarks or something to show that is this actually a
> _significant_ problem?

you need benchmarks to tell that pure per-IRQ stacks are bad for SMP
performance?

per-IRQ+per-CPU and pure per-CPU IRQ stacks should perform rougly equally
well on SMP - with per-CPU IRQ stacks having lower runtime setup cost.

> After all, unless you bind the interrupts to particular IRQs, loads of
> data - including the irq_desc[] table - are going to be bouncing too.

there's a difference between bouncing 1-2 cachelines and bouncing a *full,
dirtied stack*. The irq_desc[] bouncing is pretty much unavoidable (IRQs
do need some global state) - the stack bouncing is just plain stupid and
perfectly avoidable.

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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.037 / U:2.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site