From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <1295296310.2148.29.camel@pasglop> References: <1295262433.30950.53.camel@laptop> <1295296310.2148.29.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:43:03 +0100 Message-ID: <1295296983.30950.369.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: provide scheduler_ipi() callback in response to smp_send_reschedule() To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , Russell King , Mike Frysinger , Mikael Starvik , Jesper Nilsson , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Hirokazu Takata , Ralf Baechle , David Howells , Koichi Yasutake , Kyle McMartin , Helge Deller , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Paul Mackerras , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , linux390@de.ibm.com, Paul Mundt , "David S. Miller" , Chris Metcalf , Jeff Dike , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, user-mode-linux-user@lists.sourceforge.net, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Linux-Arch List-ID: On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 07:31 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Beware of false positive, I've used "fake" reschedule IPIs in the past > for other things (like kicking a CPU out of sleep state for unrelated > reasons). Nothing that I know that is upstream today but some of that > might come back. I'd like to avoid having to add an atomic to know if > it's a real reschedule, will the scheduler be smart enough to not bother > with false positives ? Yes it can deal with that, some will be for reschedules, some will be for ttwu tail ends and x86 too uses this ipi for a few random other things like kicking kvm out of guest context..