[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1238318710.23852.38.camel@twins>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:25:10 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] perf_counter: unify and fix delayed counter wakeup
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 11:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 11:14 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra writes:
> >
> > > While going over the wakeup code I noticed delayed wakeups only work
> > > for hardware counters but basically all software counters rely on
> > > them.
> >
> > Hmmm, I don't like the extra latency this introduces, particularly
> > since on powerpc we already have a good way to avoid the latency.
>
> Right, so I can re-instate the powerpc bits and have it call
> perf_counter_do_pending() whenever it finds the per-cpu pending bit set.
>
> I'd have to look into the fancy new per-cpu stuff for the x86 bits, but
> I'm reasonably sure something like that should be doable.
In a perfect world, I'd introduce a self-ipi on UP and use that. Also,
in that same perfect world, all arches would support cmpxchg()/xchg() so
we could put the whole thing in generic code.
--
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