lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI vector?

* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > How about using just arch_send_call_function_single_ipi() to implement
> > smp_send_reschedule() ?
> >
> > The overhead of that is a smp_mb() and a list_empty() check in
> > generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt() if there is indeed no work
> > to do.
>
> Is doing a no-op interrupt sufficient on all architectures? Is there
> some change a function call IPI might not go through the normal
> reschedule interrupt exit path?

We'd still use the smp_send_reschdule(cpu) API, so it's an architecture
detail. On x86 we'd use arch_send_call_function_single_ipi().

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-31 23:01    [W:0.070 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site