[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1217328351.7563.12.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:45:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI
vector?
On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 20:00 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 July 2008 19:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 14:30 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Not to mention the minor problem that it still deadlocks when called with
> > > interrupts disabled ;)
> >
> > __smp_call_function_single has potential though..
>
> For reschedule interrupt? I don't really agree.
How about using just arch_send_call_function_single_ipi() to implement
smp_send_reschedule() ?
The overhead of that is a smp_mb() and a list_empty() check in
generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt() if there is indeed no work
to do.
--
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