[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080731164826.GH26393@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:48:26 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
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?
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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() ?
agreed, that's just a single IPI which kicks the need_resched logic on
return-from-interrupt.
> 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.
that would be a miniscule cost - cacheline is read-shared amongst cpus
so there's no real bouncing there. So i'm all for it ...
Ingo
--
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