On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 11:43 +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 11:54 +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > >> This first version creates an on_each_cpu_mask infrastructure API > > > > But we already have the existing smp_call_function_many() doing that. > > I might be wrong but my understanding is that smp_call_function_many() > does not invoke the IPI handler on the current processor. The original > code I replaced uses on_each_cpu() which does, so I figured a wrapper > was in order and then I discovered the same wrapper in arch specific > code. > > > The on_each_cpu() thing is mostly a hysterical relic and could be > > completely depricated > > Wont this require each caller to call smp_call_function_* and then > check to see if it needs to also invoke the IPI handler locally ? I > thought that was the reason for on_each_cpu existence... What have I > missed? Gah, you're right.. early.. tea.. more. Looks fine then. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href