On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 06:22:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > The "too expensive to check the shared queue" is one aspect of it. The > > shared queue need not have events *for us* (at least, unless Jens has > > changed the implementation a bit) but it can still have events that we > > would need to check through. > > > > I don't think deadlock is a problem (any more than with multiple vectors). > > I'm happy with it either way, but as pointed out by Ralf, for the MIPS > version of the patch there aren't even other vectors available. Yep. > So sharing the vector is going to be a requirement on other architectures, > maybe we should look at whether we can make it generic and peform well > regardless? I don't think it will perform terribly _poorly_ by sharing the vector. If you have a look at how serialised the old code is... If there is a noticable slowdown anywhere, we could I suppose create a 2nd variant for small numbers of CPUs, or shared vector case, but I'd say the existing code should be fine I think. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
