[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150803132958.GQ25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:29:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] nohz: New tick dependency mask
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 03:09:39PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > That doesn't make any sense:
> >
> > tick_nohz_set_tick_dependency_this_cpu();
> >
> > (shees, you're nowhere near lazy enough, that's insane to type) is
> > almost identical to:
> >
> > tick_nohz_set_tick_dependency_cpu(.cpu = smp_processor_id());
> >
> > The only difference is a _very_ slight reduction in cost for computing
> > the per-cpu offset.
>
> But the local one must be NMI-safe. Now I can do:
>
> if (cpu == smp_processor_id())
> tick_nohz_full_kick() // NMI-safe
> else
> tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(cpu); // not NMI-safe.
Urgh, I missed that. But yes, I suppose that's ok seeing how we result
in a smaller interface.
I was going to say that with a bit of luck GCC could optimize it, but
its not inline so no it cannot.
--
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