From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753038Ab2I1Ft6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:49:58 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:37177 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750900Ab2I1Ft5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:49:57 -0400 Message-ID: <50653A7A.1020806@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:49:46 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Shi CC: Tomoki Sekiyama , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.com, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Distinguish TLB shootdown interrupts from other functions call interrupts References: <50611D82.4010702@intel.com> <20120926021128.22212.20440.stgit@hpxw> <5063F9FD.8050002@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <5063F9FD.8050002@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/27/2012 12:02 AM, Alex Shi wrote: > > Peter: > > Maybe the patch doesn't looks perfect for this issue. > So I am wondering if the following patch is better, if we don't care the irq_tlb > was counted again in irq_call? > Tomoki-san's patch looked sane to me, I should just apply it. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.