[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DD66328.4010603@gaisler.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:48:40 +0200
From: Daniel Hellstrom <daniel@...sler.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the sparc tree
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 08:07 +0200, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 15:37 +0200, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_32.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_32.c
>>>>index 41102c5..d5b3958 100644
>>>>--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_32.c
>>>>+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_32.c
>>>>@@ -156,11 +156,11 @@ void arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask(const struct
>>>>cpumask *mask)
>>>>
>>>>void smp_resched_interrupt(void)
>>>>{
>>>>+ irq_enter();
>>>>+ scheduler_ipi();
>>>> local_cpu_data().irq_resched_count++;
>>>>- /*
>>>>- * do nothing, since it all was about calling re-schedule
>>>>- * routine called by interrupt return code.
>>>>- */
>>>>+ irq_exit();
>>>>+ /* re-schedule routine called by interrupt return code. */
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That doesn't look like an IPI, that looks like its calls the function on
>>>the local cpu, which is completely pointless.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The above function is one of the IPI interrupt handlers.
>>
>>The smp_send_reschedule() is called by the generic code, it is
>>responsible for sending an IRQ to the target CPU, that CPU comes into
>>smp_resched_interrupt above from the IRQ trap handler. So yes, the
>>scheduler_ipi() is called on the local CPU, but on the CPU taking the
>>IPI not the CPU sending the IPI.
>>
>>
>
>Ah, clearly I cannot read well, I actually thought that was
>smp_send_reschedule(). OK, if sparc32 is now actually sending IPIs and
>the above is the handler, then you're completely right, sorry for the
>confusion.
>
>
Yes, my patches implements IPI for sparc32.
>Also, since sparc32 now grew this IPI, you can remove:
>
>+++ b/init/Kconfig
>@@ -827,6 +827,11 @@ config SCHED_AUTOGROUP
> desktop applications. Task group autogeneration is currently based
> upon task session.
>
>+config SCHED_TTWU_QUEUE
>+ bool
>+ depends on !SPARC32
>+ default y
>+
>
>
Do you think this is an acceptable patch? If so I will send these two
patches to the sparclinux list unless you think otherwise.
Thank you for enlightening this,
Daniel
Subject: [PATCH] SCHED_TTWU_QUEUE is not longer needed since sparc32 now
implements IPI
Signed-off-by: Daniel Hellstrom <daniel@...sler.com>
Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
---
init/Kconfig | 5 -----
kernel/sched.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
index df64627..a66b656 100644
--- a/init/Kconfig
+++ b/init/Kconfig
@@ -827,11 +827,6 @@ config SCHED_AUTOGROUP
desktop applications. Task group autogeneration is currently
based
upon task session.
-config SCHED_TTWU_QUEUE
- bool
- depends on !SPARC32
- default y
-
config MM_OWNER
bool
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index c62acf4..0516af4 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2564,7 +2564,7 @@ static void ttwu_queue(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
{
struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
-#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) && defined(CONFIG_SCHED_TTWU_QUEUE)
+#if defined(CONFIG_SMP)
if (sched_feat(TTWU_QUEUE) && cpu != smp_processor_id()) {
ttwu_queue_remote(p, cpu);
return;
--
--
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