[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1532865634.28585.2.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 08:00:34 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, will.daecon@....com,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] smp,cpumask: introduce on_each_cpu_cond_mask
On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 19:57 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
> wrote:
> > Introduce a variant of on_each_cpu_cond that iterates only over the
> > CPUs in a cpumask, in order to avoid making callbacks for every
> > single
> > CPU in the system when we only need to test a subset.
>
> Nice.
>
> Although, if you want to be really fancy, you could optimize this (or
> add a variant) that does the callback on the local CPU in parallel
> with the remote ones. That would give a small boost to TLB flushes.
The test_func callbacks are not run remotely, but on
the local CPU, before deciding who to send callbacks
to.
The actual IPIs are sent in parallel, if the cpumask
allocation succeeds (it always should in many kernel
configurations, and almost always in the rest).
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists