From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: implement multiple queues for smp function call IPIs
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 00:08:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080731220825.GD23801@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <488FA8A9.6000005@goop.org>
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> This adds 8 queues for smp_call_function(), in order to avoid a
> bottleneck on a single global lock and list for function calls. When
> initiating a function call, the sender chooses a queue based on its
> own processor id (if there are more than 8 processors, they hash down
> to 8 queues). It then sends an IPI to the corresponding vector for
> that queue to each target CPU. The target CPUs use the vector number
> to determine which queue they should scan for work.
>
> This should give smp_call_function the same performance
> characteristics as the original x86-64 cross-cpu tlb flush code, which
> used the same scheme.
heh, nice :-)
Before going into all the fine details an trying our luck in tip/master
QA, i'm a bit worried about hw compatibility in general though. APICs
have been flaky since the beginnings of times. We had erratas in the
area of local timer IRQs(IPIs) overlapping with IPIs, etc. - so i'd not
bet the farm on all APICs being able to handle a _lot_ more overlapped
inter-CPU IPIs than we do currently. (which basically was just three of
them until now, and now four with the new SMP cross-call IPIs)
So this _has_ to be approached defensively. It _should_ work, and i'm
all in favor of utilizing hardware resources more fully, but it's an
entirely new mode of operation for the hardware. I think a Kconfig
option (which defaults to off), and a boot option to disable it would be
nice, so that we can introduce this gently, at least initially. Then
when we see that it's 100% trouble-free we can flip around the default.
Plus, would it be possible to shape this a bit more dynamically? I like
8 as a nice round number, but i bet some folks would like to have 16,
some would like to have 4 ... Perhaps even making it dynamic (so that we
can turn it all off in the case of trouble with certain CPU/APIC
versions).
Hm?
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-31 22:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-29 23:32 [PATCH 2/2] x86: implement multiple queues for smp function call IPIs Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-29 23:43 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-30 0:13 ` Andi Kleen
2008-07-30 0:44 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-30 4:55 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-31 22:08 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-07-31 22:12 ` Andi Kleen
2008-07-31 22:23 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-31 22:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-01 4:58 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-01 9:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-01 14:17 ` Andi Kleen
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=20080731220825.GD23801@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/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