[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100711192615.GB21598@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:26:15 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86-64: software IRQ masking and handling
* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is something suggested by Rusty Russell a while ago. It makes IRQ
> masking a software switch like preemption or softirq enable/disable.
> Hardware interrupt masking (cli/sti) and delivery are decoupled from actual
> IRQ handling. IRQ disabling is done by single instruction moving 1 to a
> percpu variable. Enabling is similar but it should check whether there's
> any pending interrupt to handle.
>
> This change greatly reduces the number of hardware IRQ masking
> manipulations. cli/sti still being somewhat costly operations (I hear
> nehalem is better tho), this should be able to improve overall performance,
> especially on paravirts.
Not just Nehalem but on various AMD CPUs it was in the below-10-cycles range
for years.
Note that we tried this in -rt, but the pain and trouble (and, often, code
bloat) was not worth the trouble. The PUSHF/POPF/CLI/STI instructions are
really simple and short in the instruction stream - without disturbing other
registers.
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