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: 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
2008-04-02 7:30 ` Jes Sorensen [this message]
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=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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox