From: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>
To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@scsiguy.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, groudier@club-internet.fr
Subject: Re: Adaptec vs Symbios performance
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 04:50:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200111040350.EAA22275@webserver.ithnet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200111032318.fA3NIQY62745@aslan.scsiguy.com>
> >Hello Justin, hello Gerard
> >
> >I am looking currently for reasons for bad behaviour of aic7xxx
driver
> >in an shared interrupt setup and general not-nice behaviour of the
> >driver regarding multi-tasking environment.
>
> Can you be more specific?
Yes, of course :-)
What I am seeing over here is that aic7xxx is _significantly_ slower
than symbios _in the exact same context_. I refused to use the "new"
driver as long as possible because I had (right from the first test)
the "feeling" that it hurts the machine overall performance in some
way, meaning the box seems _slow_ and less responsive than it was with
the old aic driver. When I directly compared it with symbios (LSI
Logic hardware sold from Tekram) I additionaly found out, that it
seems to hurt the interrupt performance of a network card sharing its
interrupt with the aic which again does not happen with symbios. I
have already seen such behaviour before, on merely every driver I
formerly wrote for shared interrupt systems I had to fill in code that
_prevents_ lockout of other interrupt users due to indefinitely
walking through the own code in high load situation.
But, of course, you _know_ this. Nobody writes a driver like new
aic7xxx _and_ doesn't know :-)
My guess is that this knowledge made you enter the comment I ripped
from your code about using bottom half handler instead of dealing with
workload in a hardware interrupt. Again, I have to no extent read your
code completely or the like. I simply tried to find the hardware
interrupt routine and look if it does significant eli (EverLasting
Interrupt ;-) stuff - and I found your comment.
Can you re-comment from todays point of view?
> >This is nice. I cannot read the complete code around it (it is
derived
> >from aic7xxx_linux.c) but if I understand the naming and comments
> >correct, some workload is done inside the hardware interrupt (which
> >shouldn't), which would very much match my tests showing bad
overall
> >performance behaviour. Obviously this code is old (read the
comment)
> >and needs reworking.
> >Comments?
>
> I won't comment on whether deferring this work until outside of
> an interrupt context would help your "problem" until I understand
> what you are complaining about. 8-)
In a nutshell:
a) long lasting interrupt workloads prevent normal process activity
(creating latency and sticky behaviour)
b) long lasting interrupt workloads play bad on other interrupt users
(e.g. on the same shared interrupt)
I can see _both_ comparing aic with symbios.
Regards,
Stephan
next parent reply other threads:[~2001-11-04 3:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200111032318.fA3NIQY62745@aslan.scsiguy.com>
2001-11-04 3:50 ` Stephan von Krawczynski [this message]
2001-11-04 5:47 ` Adaptec vs Symbios performance Justin T. Gibbs
2001-11-04 5:23 ` Gérard Roudier
2001-11-04 14:17 ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2001-11-04 18:10 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2001-11-04 18:35 ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2001-11-04 16:31 ` Gérard Roudier
2001-11-04 19:13 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2001-11-04 19:56 ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2001-11-04 20:43 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2001-11-05 12:18 ` Matthias Andree
2001-11-04 19:02 ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2001-11-02 22:42 Google's mm problem - not reproduced on 2.4.13 Ben Smith
2001-11-03 22:53 ` Adaptec vs Symbios performance Stephan von Krawczynski
2001-11-03 23:01 ` arjan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200111040350.EAA22275@webserver.ithnet.com \
--to=skraw@ithnet.com \
--cc=gibbs@scsiguy.com \
--cc=groudier@club-internet.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox