From: Jes Sorensen <jes@sgi.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: "Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@intel.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask for ia64 - V8
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:34:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47F1F3B1.7020308@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47F0FCFE.5010106@goop.org>
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Jes Sorensen wrote:
> This change has been on the x86 side for ages, and not even Ingo made a
> peep about it ;)
Mmmm, last time I looked, x86 didn't scale to any interesting number
of CPUs :-)
>> Why not keep smp_call_function() the way it was before, rather than
>> implementing it via the call to smp_call_function_mask()?
>
> Because Xen needs a different core implementation (because of its
> different IPI implementation), and it would be better to just have to do
> one of them rather than N.
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.
Cheers,
Jes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-01 8:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <42DFA526FC41B1429CE7279EF83C6BDC01048240@pdsmsx415.ccr.corp.intel.com>
2008-03-31 9:12 ` [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask for ia64 - V8 Jes Sorensen
2008-03-31 10:17 ` [kvm-devel] [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask foria64 " Zhang, Xiantao
2008-03-31 15:02 ` [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask for ia64 " Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-01 8:34 ` Jes Sorensen [this message]
2008-04-01 16:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-02 7:30 ` Jes Sorensen
2008-04-02 23:48 ` Luck, Tony
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=47F1F3B1.7020308@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox