From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Lord Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] sata_mv: deal with interrupt coalescing interrupts Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 10:01:28 -0400 Message-ID: <446F2138.9060406@rtr.ca> References: <11480537082648-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <446DEE92.50102@pobox.com> <200605191614.00023.liml@rtr.ca> <200605191624.56928.liml@rtr.ca> <446E9BE1.3060700@pobox.com> <446F160C.40204@rtr.ca> <446F1883.9090601@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from 206-248-132-125.dsl.teksavvy.com ([206.248.132.125]:7659 "EHLO shrimpy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964841AbWETOB3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 May 2006 10:01:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <446F1883.9090601@pobox.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Unless you have a _lot_ of ports active at the same time, irq coalescing > can increase latency. I agree, which is why I haven't actually turned it on yet. But a runtime sysfs attr for it should allow us to benchmark things, and see if it really helps or not under various loads. > Ideally, for this, AHCI, and any other SATA controller that does > coalescing, we have a runtime dynamic trigger that turns on coalescing > when interrupt traffic exceeds a runtime limit. Yeah, if coalescing turns out to be a win under hight load, then a generic strategy like that would be a great feature. Cheers