linux-kernel - Re: x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI vector?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4891FB0A.907@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:48:58 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	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 wrote:
> 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.
>   

Is doing a no-op interrupt sufficient on all architectures?  Is there
some change a function call IPI might not go through the normal
reschedule interrupt exit path?

    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/