From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] AHCI: Conserve interrupts with pci_enable_msi_block_part() interface Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:09:54 -0400 Message-ID: <20130903140954.GC10522@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20130903135541.GB10522@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130903135541.GB10522@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alexander Gordeev Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Joerg Roedel , Jan Beulich , Bjorn Helgaas List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 09:55:41AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hmmm.... I've been looking at the code and and a curiosity. Why does > multiple MSI support implicitly enabled threaded IRQ handling? Why > are those two linked? Also, do you have any numbers to show that this > actually is better? Handling the processing off to a thread isn't a > light operation. Also, it probably is a good idea to skip dummy ports when requesting irqs from ahci_host_activate(), which BTW should probably be renamed to ahci_host_activate_mmsi(). Thanks. -- tejun