From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from stat1.steeleye.com ([65.114.3.130]:3552 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264032AbUDVNqV (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:46:21 -0400 Subject: Re: [Patch] SMP call function cleanup From: James Bottomley In-Reply-To: <20040422132443.GV743@holomorphy.com> References: <1082636511.1332.34.camel@halo> <20040422122818.GR743@holomorphy.com> <20040422123703.GY22027@krispykreme> <1082638779.1778.16.camel@mulgrave> <20040422132443.GV743@holomorphy.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 22 Apr 2004 09:46:16 -0400 Message-Id: <1082641576.1714.36.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Anton Blanchard , Jan Glauber , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com List-ID: On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 09:24, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > Well, at the moment, anyone in need of IPI'ing > 1 cpu is IPI'ing all, > which is not swift, so bear that in mind. Though given on_one_cpu(), I > suppose they can do: > > for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, foo->mask) > on_one_cpu(cpu, bar, ...); > > which more or less avoids IPI'ing 1024 cpus to run a function on 2 or > whatever they were going on about, so they can likely code it that way. But the key is 'anyone in need of'. What I'd like is for you to demonstrate a need of execute on cpumask before it gets added to the API. Murphy's law says that when given a choice people invariably make the wrong one, so lets not introduce choice into the api unless it's absolutely necessary. James