From: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Lazy interrupt disabling for 64-bit machines
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:10:55 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060926011055.32d533e7@pb15> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17688.45762.294594.33723@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:55:30 +1000 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
> This implements a lazy strategy for disabling interrupts. This means
> that local_irq_disable() et al. just clear the 'interrupts are
> enabled' flag in the paca. If an interrupt comes along, the interrupt
> entry code notices that interrupts are supposed to be disabled, and
> clears the EE bit in SRR1, clears the 'interrupts are hard-enabled'
> flag in the paca, and returns. This means that interrupts only
> actually get disabled in the processor when an interrupt comes along.
>
> When interrupts are enabled by local_irq_enable() et al., the code
> sets the interrupts-enabled flag in the paca, and then checks whether
> interrupts got hard-disabled. If so, it also sets the EE bit in the
> MSR to hard-enable the interrupts.
>
> This has the potential to improve performance, and also makes it
> easier to make a kernel that can boot on iSeries and on other 64-bit
> machines, since this lazy-disable strategy is very similar to the
> soft-disable strategy that iSeries already uses.
I like it. Got any benchmarks that show a difference?
At first glance I found it a bit hard to follow, since the old+new
terminology is a bit complicated. There's softe, proc_enabled and
hard_enabled. A s/proc_enabled/soft_enabled/g (and similar for
asm-offsets) might make it a little more intuitive, since you're
touching most uses of it already?
-Olof
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-26 6:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-26 4:55 [PATCH] Lazy interrupt disabling for 64-bit machines Paul Mackerras
2006-09-26 5:30 ` Michael Ellerman
2006-09-26 6:10 ` Olof Johansson [this message]
2006-09-26 9:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-26 10:31 ` Gabriel Paubert
2006-09-26 15:43 ` Olof Johansson
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-10-04 6:47 Paul Mackerras
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=20060926011055.32d533e7@pb15 \
--to=olof@lixom.net \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).