[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1315940361.4226.17.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:59:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [ia64] Question on __ARCH_WANT_UNLOCKED_CTXSW
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 13:46 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > happen to remember what the perceived benefit of using
> > __ARCH_WANT_UNLOCKED_CTXSW was about?
>
> No - digging around the code hasn't rung any bells for me either.
>
> Perhaps just general goodness for not holding a lock for
> longer than we need to? But that would imply some case where
> someone else could do something useful by being able to grab
> the lock when we drop it. About the only thing I can think
> of is that it would allow tasks to be re-balanced just a
> teeny bit earlier --- but re-balancing ought to be somewhat
> rare, yes?
Mostly yes, except remote wakeups, however that got a complete overhaul
in 3.0. Instead of taking the remote rq->lock we now enqueue the task on
a list and IPI the thing, then let the IPI do the remote enqueue and
trigger the reschedule.
So it might make sense to re-evaluate this on ia64 like Ken suggested..
then again, who has a large ia64 box and is still willing to put time
in?
--
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