[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131218155808.GG18464@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:58:10 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] rcu: Fix unraised IPI to timekeeping CPU
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:11:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:56:12PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Because scheduler_ipi() conditionally calls irq_enter() and irq_exit()
> > (I wonder if that's a good idea btw, is that here to deal with spurious
> > scheduler IPIs of some sort?)
>
> No its because the traditional scheduler IPI did all the work from the
> interrupt return path -- and like the comment in there says, for many of
> the IPIs that's still true.
>
> So going through the architectures and making all scheduler_ipi callers
> do irq_enter/exit would actually make them slower.
Fair point!
Thanks.
--
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