[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1277380968.1875.965.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:02:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H.PeterA" <"nvin hpa"@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 13:58 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:42:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 13:20 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Ok so going back to the original self-irq patchkit. Unfortunately the other
> > > reviewer hated that. How to get out of that deadlock?
> >
> > Well, I didn't like your original patch either.
> >
> > What's wrong with going with the patch I posted today? (aside from me
> > getting the barriers slightly wrong and not doing the arch
> > implementation).
>
> Well it would need to work.
Look at kernel/perf_event.c:perf_pending_queue()/__perf_pending_run()
> Also I personally didn't see the point of the irq items list because
> there's no good way to dynamically allocate it in a NMI, so the window
> would be always "fixed size" anyways and you could as well just use
> per cpu data.
>
> That's why for simple self irq I preferred Ying's original patch.
I already told you that I have an irq_work in every perf_event structure
(its called perf_pending_entry), I cannot register an id for each
perf_event because:
1) there's potentially more than 32 of them
2) I'd need an id->perf_event map which is a waste of time
--
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