[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080503.164024.265682957.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 16:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mingo@...e.hu
Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, efault@....de,
elendil@...net.nl, parag.warudkar@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, guichaz@...oo.fr, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: 'global' rq->clock
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 01:38:25 +0200
> ah, good! It really looks like unnecessary overhead for the "simple
> IPIs". But ... i'm wondering ... what about softirq processing? Do these
> IPIs process softirqs on the way out? In that case the non-processed
> jiffies might be a problem.
>
> it's all a bit messy. I wish we could start turning jiffies into a
> function (which would just read GTOD and estimate jiffies from there),
> but i fear we are not there yet ...
I think Peter Z. made a good point that we probably need to
keep it there for smp_call_function() receivers, so that
the called functions can test the context they are in accurately.
--
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