[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200820130812.GU2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:08:12 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 08/10] smp,irq_work: Use the new irq_work API
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 03:04:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:41 PM <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure I get the "expensive irq_work queues" argument, I fully
> > agree with you that adding the atomic op is fairly crap.
>
> There's an atomic op on the actual runing side too, because of the
> whole IRQ_WORK_PENDING thing.
>
> So you get that double hit.
>
> Maybe it doesn't matter. I just remember us being very careful to
> avoid any unnecessary atomics in the smp_call_function area, but
> admittedly I haven't worked on that code for a few years, so ..
Patch #3 trades that atomic for a full barrier. Not a massive win on
x86, but still.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists