* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
quoted text > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 20:00 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 29 July 2008 19:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 14:30 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > Not to mention the minor problem that it still deadlocks when called with
> > > > interrupts disabled ;)
> > >
> > > __smp_call_function_single has potential though..
> >
> > For reschedule interrupt? I don't really agree.
>
> How about using just arch_send_call_function_single_ipi() to implement
> smp_send_reschedule() ?
agreed, that's just a single IPI which kicks the need_resched logic on
return-from-interrupt.
quoted text > 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.
that would be a miniscule cost - cacheline is read-shared amongst cpus
so there's no real bouncing there. So i'm all for it ...
Ingo
--
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/
Messages in current thread:
Re: x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flus ... , Ingo Molnar , (Thu Jul 31, 9:48 am)