[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49641872.3000404@sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:50:26 -0800
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] x86: cpumask: some more cpumask cleanups - flush_tlb_*
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 January 2009 14:19:35 Mike Travis wrote:
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> Quite good! Can we fix those TLB flush cpumask uses too?
>> Here is one proposal.
>
> Here's what I had. It's untested though...
>
> x86: change flush_tlb_others to take a const struct cpumask *. FIXME: REVIEW
>
> This is made a little more tricky by uv_flush_tlb_others which
> actually alters its argument, for an IPI to be sent to the remaining
> cpus in the mask.
>
> I solve this by allocating a cpumask_var_t for this case and falling back
> to IPI should this fail.
I thought about this but I wondered if we wanted to add the overhead of a kmalloc
call for every tlb flush? For a UV system, simultaneous flushes will be quite common,
so introducing two kmalloc's in the path could really hamper performance.
Thanks,
Mike
--
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