From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754370Ab3JIUqF (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:46:05 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:27944 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751500Ab3JIUqE (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:46:04 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1066,1371106800"; d="scan'208";a="408486006" Message-ID: <5255C07E.70805@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:45:50 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Rostedt CC: LKML , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Clark Williams , Borislav Petkov , Andrew Morton , "Kleen, Andi" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Lazy disabling of interrupts References: <20131009144150.108f7041@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20131009144150.108f7041@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Summary > ------- > > Although the extreme case shows a nice improvement, I'm skeptical if it > is worth doing for real world applications. You did the experiment, and credit to you for not going "I did the work, now include it" but rather for publishing the results so we can learn from them. It *does* make me wonder if we can leverage RTM for a significant subset of these (as an interrupt will abort a transaction); that should be substantially cheaper and less complex. -hpa