From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Jes Sorensen <jes@sgi.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
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: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:06:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47F25D6B.40704@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47F1F3B1.7020308@sgi.com>
Jes Sorensen wrote:
> 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 :-)
>
Well, I guess you need all those CPUs if scanning a 64-word bitvector
takes anything like the time it takes to do an IPI...
> 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...
Have you looked at Jens Axboe's patches to make all this stuff a lot
more arch-common?
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-01 16:06 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
2008-04-01 16:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
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=47F25D6B.40704@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=anthony.xu@intel.com \
--cc=cotte@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jes@sgi.com \
--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