> +	q = &__get_cpu_var(call_single_queue);
quoted text
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> +	list_replace_init(&q->list, &list);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);

I think you could do that lockless if you use a similar data structure
as netchannels (essentially a fixed size single buffer queue with atomic 
exchange of the first/last pointers) and not using a list. That would avoid 
at least one bounce for the lock and likely another one for the  list
manipulation.

Also the right way would be to not add a second mechanism for this,
but fix the standard smp_call_function_single() to support it.

-Andi
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/