From: Jes Sorensen <jes@sgi.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ia64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Xu,
Anthony" <anthony.xu@intel.com>,
"Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask for ia64 - V8
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:30:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47F3362F.3020504@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47F25D6B.40704@goop.org>
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't have both interfaces, merely
>> questioning why adding what to me seems like an unnecessary performance
>> hit for the classic case of the call.
>
> I don't mind how many interfaces there are, so long as there only needs
> to be one place to hook to plug in the Xen version of
> smp_call_function_whatever. Perhaps the answer is to just hook the IPI
> mechanism itself rather than the whole of smp_call_function_mask...
Well we're obviously going to have at least two interfaces given that
we have the traditional Linux one and Xen seems to require something
different :-)
> Have you looked at Jens Axboe's patches to make all this stuff a lot
> more arch-common?
Nope, do you have a pointer?
Cheers,
Jes
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jes Sorensen <jes@sgi.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ia64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Xu,
Anthony" <anthony.xu@intel.com>,
"Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask for ia64 - V8
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:30:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47F3362F.3020504@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47F25D6B.40704@goop.org>
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't have both interfaces, merely
>> questioning why adding what to me seems like an unnecessary performance
>> hit for the classic case of the call.
>
> I don't mind how many interfaces there are, so long as there only needs
> to be one place to hook to plug in the Xen version of
> smp_call_function_whatever. Perhaps the answer is to just hook the IPI
> mechanism itself rather than the whole of smp_call_function_mask...
Well we're obviously going to have at least two interfaces given that
we have the traditional Linux one and Xen seems to require something
different :-)
> Have you looked at Jens Axboe's patches to make all this stuff a lot
> more arch-common?
Nope, do you have a pointer?
Cheers,
Jes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-02 7:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-28 9:59 [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask for ia64 Zhang, Xiantao
2008-03-30 11:42 ` [kvm-ia64-devel] " Avi Kivity
2008-03-30 11:42 ` [kvm-ia64-devel] [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask Avi Kivity
2008-03-30 11:42 ` [kvm-ia64-devel] [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask for ia64 Avi Kivity
2008-03-31 1:40 ` Zhang, Xiantao
2008-03-31 1:40 ` Zhang, Xiantao
2008-03-31 8:25 ` [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask for ia64 - V8 Zhang, Xiantao
2008-03-31 9:12 ` Jes Sorensen
2008-03-31 9:12 ` Jes Sorensen
2008-03-31 9:12 ` Jes Sorensen
2008-03-31 10:17 ` [kvm-devel] [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask foria64 " Zhang, Xiantao
2008-03-31 10:17 ` Zhang, Xiantao
2008-03-31 15:02 ` [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask for ia64 " Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-31 15:02 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-31 15:02 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-01 8:34 ` Jes Sorensen
2008-04-01 8:34 ` Jes Sorensen
2008-04-01 8:34 ` Jes Sorensen
2008-04-01 16:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-01 16:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-01 16:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-02 7:30 ` Jes Sorensen
2008-04-02 7:30 ` Jes Sorensen [this message]
2008-04-02 7:30 ` Jes Sorensen
2008-04-02 23:48 ` Luck, Tony
2008-04-02 23:48 ` Luck, Tony
2008-04-02 23:48 ` Luck, Tony
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-03-31 8:25 Zhang, Xiantao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47F3362F.3020504@sgi.com \
--to=jes@sgi.com \
--cc=anthony.xu@intel.com \
--cc=cotte@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=kvm-ia64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xiantao.zhang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.