From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: implement multiple queues for smp function call IPIs
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:44:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <488FB95A.1000402@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080730001358.GA23938@one.firstfloor.org>
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 04:32:57PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> This adds 8 queues for smp_call_function(), in order to avoid a
>>
>
> Now that we have per CPU IDT and there's no global bottleneck anymore
> I think it would be actually fine to use
> more than 8 vectors. 32 or 64 might be a better default.
>
Well, there's no point in having more vectors than CPUs, and a bit of
doubling up doesn't hurt too much. So I think 8 is a good default for
normal sized machines. But I can see that being able to add more
vectors for large machines might be helpful. I guess it really depends
on what the fan-out is for multicast messages.
I dunno, maybe it makes sense to take numa topology into account, on the
assumption that 1) most cross-cpu function calls will be tlb flushes now
(or at least, sending to mm->cpu_vm_mask), and 2) most tlb flushes will
be between cpus within one node.
>> void native_send_call_func_ipi(cpumask_t mask)
>> {
>> cpumask_t allbutself;
>> + unsigned queue = smp_processor_id() % CONFIG_GENERIC_SMP_QUEUES;
>>
>
> Does this really always run with preemption disabled?
Think so, but I'll check again. One of my TODO list items is to check
whether smp_call_function_mask should disable preemption for itself, or
at least WARN_ON if its called with preemption enabled.
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-30 0:44 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 [this message]
2008-07-30 4:55 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-31 22:08 ` Ingo Molnar
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=488FB95A.1000402@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--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