[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1217538909.8157.99.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:15:09 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
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 Thu, 2008-07-31 at 22:57 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> We'd still use the smp_send_reschdule(cpu) API, so it's an architecture
> detail. On x86 we'd use arch_send_call_function_single_ipi().
Also, all interrupts _should_ do the regular interrupt enter/exit paths,
we fixup stuff there, like jiffies and such.
We had a fun NO_HZ bug the other day because some sparc64 IPIs didn't.
--
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