[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080423013617.GB23192@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:36:17 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
peterz@...radead.org, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/11] x86: convert to generic helpers for IPI function calls
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 06:22:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > The "too expensive to check the shared queue" is one aspect of it. The
> > shared queue need not have events *for us* (at least, unless Jens has
> > changed the implementation a bit) but it can still have events that we
> > would need to check through.
> >
> > I don't think deadlock is a problem (any more than with multiple vectors).
>
> I'm happy with it either way, but as pointed out by Ralf, for the MIPS
> version of the patch there aren't even other vectors available.
Yep.
> So sharing the vector is going to be a requirement on other architectures,
> maybe we should look at whether we can make it generic and peform well
> regardless?
I don't think it will perform terribly _poorly_ by sharing the vector.
If you have a look at how serialised the old code is...
If there is a noticable slowdown anywhere, we could I suppose create a
2nd variant for small numbers of CPUs, or shared vector case, but I'd
say the existing code should be fine I think.
--
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