[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200712071058.38416.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:58:37 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Joachim Fenkes <fenkes@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
OF-EWG <ewg@...ts.openfabrics.org>,
Christoph Raisch <raisch@...ibm.com>,
Marcus Eder <meder@...ibm.com>,
OF-General <general@...ts.openfabrics.org>,
Stefan Roscher <stefan.roscher@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/ehca: Serialize HCA-related hCalls on POWER5
On Thursday 06 December 2007, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Regarding the performance problem, have you checked whether converting all
> > your spin_lock_irqsave to spin_lock/spin_lock_irq improves your performance
> > on the older machines? Maybe it's already fast enough that way.
>
> It does seem that the only places that the hcall_lock is taken also
> use msleep, so they must always be in process context. So you can
> safely just use spin_lock(), right?
I think it needs some more inspection. The msleep in there is only called
for hcalls that return H_IS_LONG_BUSY(). In theory, you can call
ehca_plpar_hcall_norets() from inside an interrupt handler if the
hcall in question never returns long busy.
Arnd <><
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists