[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236532996.4861.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:23:16 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] [VOYAGER] x86: add {safe,hard}_smp_processor_id
to smp_ops
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 10:15 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > Not having apics, Voyager can't use the default apic implementation of
> > these, it has to read from a special port in the VIC to get the
> > processor ID, so abstract these functions in smp_ops to allow voyager
> > to live simultaneously with the apic code.
> >
>
> These aren't performance-sensitive at all, are they? smp_ops is not
> subject to patching/inlining optimisations happen to more hotpath pvops.
No more than the function pointer indirection of smp_call_function().
Fortunately, the hard version is called in very few places, so the
overhead is minimal.
> Is safe_smp_processor_id needed at all? It's only got two callers, and
> x86-64 just implements it as smp_processor_id().
I can't see a reason, no. If you look at voyager it uses the same
function for both, but x86 seems to have extra gunk in the safe path, so
I didn't feel entitled to remove it.
James
--
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