[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1317026774.9084.66.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:46:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reduce cross CPU IPI interference
On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 11:43 +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 11:54 +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> >> This first version creates an on_each_cpu_mask infrastructure API
> >
> > But we already have the existing smp_call_function_many() doing that.
>
> I might be wrong but my understanding is that smp_call_function_many()
> does not invoke the IPI handler on the current processor. The original
> code I replaced uses on_each_cpu() which does, so I figured a wrapper
> was in order and then I discovered the same wrapper in arch specific
> code.
>
> > The on_each_cpu() thing is mostly a hysterical relic and could be
> > completely depricated
>
> Wont this require each caller to call smp_call_function_* and then
> check to see if it needs to also invoke the IPI handler locally ? I
> thought that was the reason for on_each_cpu existence... What have I
> missed?
Gah, you're right.. early.. tea.. more.
Looks fine then.
--
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