[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1277495353.1875.991.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:49:13 +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,
tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>, davem <davem@...emloft.net>,
paulus <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work -v2
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 21:39 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 21:30 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure what all the logic for entry enqueued by someone
> > else is good for? Is that for the case you don't have enough
> > entries preallocated and you share them with someone else?
> >
> > Normally if the sharing is per cpu that would be difficult
> > to recover from because if it's due to a nest situation (for example)
> > you would deadlock.
> >
> > For me it would seem simpler to simply not share.
>
> perf has two different reasons to for the callback, what I do is set the
> state and enqueue, if its already enqueued the pending callback will
> handle both.
>
> Its cheaper than having two callback structures per event.
>
> We can expose the claim/enqueue thing separately so that users can
> choose.
Also, its possible the PMI hits again before the IRQ callback has a
chance to happen.
--
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