[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130924080436.GH9326@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:04:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@....ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:52:07AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> So if that holds, we have a solid way to do per-cpu. On one side, I tend
> to think that r13 being task/thread/thread_info is probably a better
> overall choice, I'm worried that going in a different direction than x86
> means generic code will get "tuned" to use per-cpu for performance
> critical stuff rather than task/thread/thread_info in inflexible ways.
The plus side of per-cpu over per-task is that one typically has a lot
less cpus than tasks. Also, its far easier/cheaper to iterate cpus than
it is to iterate tasks.
--
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