linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] x86-64: introduce fast variant of smp_call_function

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080317072514.GY17940@kernel.dk>
Date:	Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:25:14 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de, dgc@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] x86-64: introduce fast variant of smp_call_function_single()

On Sun, Mar 16 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 14 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >  
> >>Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>    
> >>>rom: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
> >>> 
> >>>      
> >>Why is this necessary?  How is smp_call_function_single slow?
> >>    
> >
> >Because it's completely serialized by the call_lock spinlock.
> >  
> 
> Hm, yes.  Would it be possible to implement smp_call_function_mask in a 
> generic way to avoid that?  Turn the static structure into a per-cpu 
> request list?

Have you looked at the patches you are replying to? :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/