On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 11:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 06:01:01PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > [ TL;DR for the non-ARM folks on CC: disabling softirq processing when using
> > SIMD in kernel mode could reduce complexity and improve performance, but
> > we
> > need
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 06:01:01PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> [ TL;DR for the non-ARM folks on CC: disabling softirq processing when using
> SIMD in kernel mode could reduce complexity and improve performance, but we
> need to decide whether we can do this, and how much softirq processing
>
On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 03:05, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 06:01:01PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > Questions:
> > - what did I miss or break horribly?
> > - does any of this matter for RT? AIUI, RT runs softirqs from a dedicated
> > kthread, so I don't think it cares.
>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 06:01:01PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> Questions:
> - what did I miss or break horribly?
> - does any of this matter for RT? AIUI, RT runs softirqs from a dedicated
> kthread, so I don't think it cares.
> - what would be a reasonable upper bound to keep softirqs disab
[ TL;DR for the non-ARM folks on CC: disabling softirq processing when using
SIMD in kernel mode could reduce complexity and improve performance, but we
need to decide whether we can do this, and how much softirq processing
latency we can tolerate. If we can find a satisfactory solution for t
