On Tue, Oct 27 2020 at 16:07, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 11:11:02AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> Right. I found this David Runge's log:
>
> True, ->bi_end_io instances can do a lot of things as long as they
> are hardirq safe.
>
> And in the end the IPI case isn't the super fast path anyway, as it
> means we don't use a queue per CPU.
>
> Is there a way to raise a softirq and preferably place it on a given
> CPU without our IPI dance? That should be a win-win situation for
> everyone.
Not really. Softirq pending bits are strictly per cpu and we don't have
locking or atomics to set them remotely. Even if we had that, then you'd
still need a mechanism to make sure that the remote CPU actually
processes them. So you'd still need an IPI of some sorts.
Thanks,
tglx
