On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 08/12/14 17:39, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > >> On 08/05/14 19:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > >>>> It allows us to synchronize with another CPU that may be inside > >>>> gic_raise_softirq(). If the other CPU was in that function then this CPU > >>>> would wait until it was done sending the IPI to continue along and > >>>> reroute them. If the other CPU was just about to grab the sgi lock then > >>>> we would guarantee that the CPU would see the new gic_cpu_map value and > >>>> thus any redirection is not necessary. > >>> OK I get it now. > >>> > >>>> I hoped that the commit text explained this. > >>> I'm possibly not bright enough to get it the first time. > >>> > >>>> Honestly it probably isn't a noticeable performance boost either way > >>>> but I think this is the best we can do. > >>> Sure, agreed. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Ok, so which patch is preferred? > > I'd say the later. > > > > > > Sorry, it's not clear. I'll send v3 and hopefully it will be the right one. Certainly the best way to disambiguate things. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
