[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <488E5455.6010901@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:20:53 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI vector?
Resend to cc: Andi on an address which actually works.
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Now that normal smp_function_call is no longer an enormous bottleneck,
> is there still value in having a specialised IPI vector for tlb
> flushes? It seems like quite a lot of duplicate code.
>
> The 64-bit tlb flush multiplexes the various cpus across 8 vectors to
> increase scalability. If this is a big issue, then the smp function
> call code can (and should) do the same thing. (Though looking at it
> more closely, the way the code uses the 8 vectors is actually a less
> general way of doing what smp_call_function is doing anyway.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> (And uv should definitely be hooking pvops if it wants its own
> flush_tlb_others; vsmp sets the precedent for a subarch-like use of
> pvops.)
>
> J
> --
> 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/
--
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