lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/11] x86: convert to generic helpers for IPI function calls

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > yes and i gave in - Nick and Jens wants to do some crazy stuff and
> > they had the numbers. Here's the previous discussion:
> >
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/27/125
>
> No, the previous discussion was about single *queues* vs single
> *vectors*.
>
> I agree unconditionally with the decision to use a separate per-cpu
> queue from the shared queue (in fact, I would argue that the "mask"
> code might want to notice when the mask is just a single CPU, and turn
> a mask request into a targeted request).
>
> But I wonder why we want to then have two IPI target vectors, when it
> would appear to be perfectly fine and cheap to have just a single
> vector that can handle both the per-cpu case and the shared queue case
> (since the thing would tend to be one or the other, not both).
>
> A single vector is still pefectly fine, if 99% of all usage cases are
> the targeted-to-a-single-cpu thing, because the shared queue will
> basically be empty (and you can test that without even taking any
> locks).

ok. In which case the reschedule vector could be consolidated into that
as well (it's just a special single-CPU call). Then there would be no
new vector allocations needed at all, just the renaming of
RESCHEDULE_VECTOR to something more generic.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-22 21:31    [W:0.135 / U:0.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site