Re: [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask for ia64 - V8
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [02/17][PATCH] Implement smp_call_function_mask for ia64 - V8
- From: Jes Sorensen <jes@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:34:57 +0200
- Cc: "Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>, Carsten Otte <cotte@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kvm-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kvm-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Xu, Anthony" <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <47F0FCFE.5010106@xxxxxxxx>
- List-id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
- References: <42DFA526FC41B1429CE7279EF83C6BDC01048240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47F0AB18.2010707@xxxxxxx> <47F0FCFE.5010106@xxxxxxxx>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226)
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Jes Sorensen wrote:
This change has been on the x86 side for ages, and not even Ingo made a
peep about it ;)
Mmmm, last time I looked, x86 didn't scale to any interesting number
of CPUs :-)
Why not keep smp_call_function() the way it was before, rather than
implementing it via the call to smp_call_function_mask()?
Because Xen needs a different core implementation (because of its
different IPI implementation), and it would be better to just have to do
one of them rather than N.
I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't have both interfaces, merely
questioning why adding what to me seems like an unnecessary performance
hit for the classic case of the call.
Cheers,
Jes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]