From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Vadim Lobanov <vlobanov@speakeasy.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: remove IRQF_DISABLED
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:54:35 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903021048570.3111@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200903021045.20723.vlobanov@speakeasy.net>
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Vadim Lobanov wrote:
> On Monday 02 March 2009 09:11:54 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The thing is, with PIO, a 512-byte disk read ends up doing 256 16-bit word
> > reads from the controller, each potentially up to 600ns long (PIO0
> > timings). That's 150ms - for a single sector!
>
> Out of curiosity, the peanut gallery wishes to ask:
> Is the above supposed to be 600us (*1000), or 150us (/1000)? Probably the
> latter.
Sorry, I was off by a lot. Yes. /1000. The end result ends up being lots
better (and I should have realized I did my conversion wrong, because the
times ended up being _so_ big), but not better enough - we've had dropped
timer interrupts etc on those kinds of machines unless you use "hdparm -u1".
Although it porbably does mean that the problem tends to be more in the
really bad mode0 case (600ns -> 150us/sector -> milliseconds for
multi-sector transfers).
I forget what our multi-sector limit is, I think it tends to be 16. So
you'll never get _really_ long irq-off times, but "several ms" is still
pretty damn bad.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-02 18:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-02 12:21 [RFC][PATCH] irq: remove IRQF_DISABLED Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-02 14:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-02 15:47 ` Matthew Wilcox
2009-03-02 15:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-02 16:32 ` Matthew Wilcox
2009-03-02 21:01 ` Russell King
2009-03-02 21:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-02 17:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-03-02 17:55 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-03-02 18:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-02 18:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-02 18:27 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-03-02 18:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-03-02 18:48 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-03-02 19:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-03-02 19:18 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-03-02 17:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-02 18:45 ` Vadim Lobanov
2009-03-02 18:54 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2009-03-05 15:40 ` Mark Lord
2009-03-02 21:17 ` Alan Cox
2009-03-06 8:58 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-03-06 9:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-06 9:59 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-03-06 10:05 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-03-06 10:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-06 17:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-06 21:40 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-03-02 17:55 ` Andrew Morton
2009-03-02 18:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=alpine.LFD.2.00.0903021048570.3111@localhost.localdomain \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vlobanov@speakeasy.net \
/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