[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140721181637.GK8690@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:16:37 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] irq_work: Introduce void irq work
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 02:44:12AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Being able to trigger an empty IPI appears to be useless in the first
> place. Yet it is expected to be very useful for callers who just need
> to execute irq_enter() or irq_exit() to a remote target.
>
> More precisely this is going to be useful for the nohz subsystem which
> often needs a remote CPU to reschedule its tick when some state changed
> and require periodicity for any reason. Similar cases have been handled
> with random IPIs until now. But they surely bring unwanted overhead
> all along since they are all dedicated for specific tasks.
>
> Triggering an irq work/smp_call_function IPI should be enough to solve
> that. If competing and spurious IPIs become a problem, we can still
> optimize that later.
>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> include/linux/irq_work.h | 1 +
> kernel/irq_work.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/irq_work.h b/include/linux/irq_work.h
> index bf9422c..b2ad065 100644
> --- a/include/linux/irq_work.h
> +++ b/include/linux/irq_work.h
> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> bool irq_work_queue_on(struct irq_work *work, int cpu);
> +void irq_work_void_on(int cpu);
> #endif
>
> void irq_work_run(void);
> diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c
> index 4b0a890..36b7fb2 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c
> @@ -81,6 +81,27 @@ bool irq_work_queue_on(struct irq_work *work, int cpu)
> return true;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(irq_work_queue_on);
> +
> +/**
> + * irq_work_void_on(): Run a void IRQ on the target
> + * @cpu: The cpu to run the IRQ on
> + *
> + * Run a void IRQ for its own sake on the target. It's generally
> + * useful for callers which want to run irq_enter() or irq_exit()
> + * on a remote CPU.
> + */
> +void irq_work_void_on(int cpu)
> +{
> + /*
> + * NOTE: we could optimize that and spare some IPIs
> + * after checking that raised_list isn't empty before raising.
> + * This can't be done properly without cmpxchg() though so
> + * it may make things worse after all. But lets leave that
> + * possibility open in case people report such issue in the
> + * future.
> + */
> + arch_send_call_function_single_ipi(cpu);
> +}
> #endif
>
> /* Enqueue the irq work @work on the current CPU */
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
--
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