From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:17:58 +0100 Subject: [ltt-dev] [patch 3/9] LTTng instrumentation tasklets In-Reply-To: References: <20090324155625.420966314@polymtl.ca> <20090324160148.238795468@polymtl.ca> <20090324175621.GE31117@elte.hu> Message-ID: <1237990678.7972.1094.camel@twins> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 06:52 -0700, Chetan.Loke at Emulex.Com wrote: > Quick question. I understand this is unrelated to this patch. So I > apologize in advance. > Ingo - you mentioned "tasklets are a legacy mechanism". Is there a > plan to phase them out ? Let me draw a small picture as to what's > bothering me. > > With the SR-IOV support if there are 'N' virtual functions then there > will be 'N' driver instances(actually N+1, 1 for the PF). If that > driver drains the responses in the interrupt context then all such > VF-instances could virtually block everyone else(because SR-IOV guys > might also have MSI-X enabled). > So now all such drivers should alter their Rx path.Driver's can queue > tasklets and can also get the performance they want. > > Any suggestions? Threaded interrupts?