[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <565344FF.1090508@imgtec.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:55:27 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@...tec.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <jason@...edaemon.net>,
<marc.zyngier@....com>, <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
<ralf@...ux-mips.org>, <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] irqchip/mips-gic: Add a IPI hierarchy domaind
On 11/20/2015 08:39 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Same applies when doing the reverse mapping.
>>
>> In other words, the ipi_mask won't always necessarily be linear to facilitate
>> the 1:1 mapping that this approach assumes.
>>
>> It is a solvable problem, but I think we're losing the elegance that promoted
>> going into this direction and I think sticking to using struct ipi_mapping
>> (with some enhancements to how it's exposed an integrated by/into generic
>> code) is a better approach.
> The only reason to use the ipi_mapping thing is if we need non
> consecutive masks, i.e. cpu 5 and 9.
That's the case I had in mind.
>
> I really don't want to have it mandatory as it does not make any sense
> for systems where the IPI is a single per_cpu interrupt. For the
> linear consecutive space it is just adding memory and cache footprint
> for no benefit. Think about machines with 4k and more cpus ....
OK. Although so far I think the ovehead is higher without the
ipi_mapping because of all the extra checkings we have to do when
sending an IPI. I'll leave this to code review when I have something
ready though.
I'm debugging more problems and hopefully I'll send something this week.
Thanks,
Qais
--
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