[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090212082207.GB26838@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:22:07 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...x.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Carsten Emde <ce@...g.ch>, Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] rt: fix ipi kfree(), introduce IPI_SOFTIRQ
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> ------------------>
> Subject: rt: fix ipi kfree(), introduce IPI_SOFTIRQ
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Date: Thu Feb 12 09:06:11 CET 2009
>
> in 2.6.28 generic_smp_call_function_interrupt() grew a kfree(),
> which is a rather complex, sleepable method under -rt. But the
> IPI code runs as a hardirq - which cannot run such code.
>
> So defer this work to a softirq context instead. It still stays
> on the same CPU so the percpu IPI assumptions are upheld.
On a second thought ...
I think we could eliminate the kfree() instead, and keep the
atomicity of IPI cross-calls. Linus expressed doubts about
the IPI kmalloc()/kfree() pair we do in the generic SMP IPI
code, suggesting that it probably does not help performance
all that much - so such a change might be upstream-able as well
and would keep -rt closer to mainline.
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