From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2]: Remote softirq invocation infrastructure. Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080920.125949.193703969.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1221926529.1343.140.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080920091918.0ffaef8c@infradead.org> <1221932404.1343.196.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, steffen.klassert@secunet.com To: dwalker@mvista.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1221932404.1343.196.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Daniel Walker Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:40:04 -0700 > Dave didn't supply the users of his code, or what kind of improvement > was seen, or the case in which it would be needed. I think Dave knowns > his subsystem, but the code on the surface looks like an end run around > some other problem area.. I posted an example use case on netdev a few days ago, and the block layer example is in Jen's block layer tree. It's for networking cards that don't do flow seperation on receive using multiple RX queues and MSI-X interrupts. It's also for things like IPSEC where the per-packet cpu usage is so huge (to do the crypto) that it makes sense to even split up the work to multiple cpus within the same flow.