On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 18:42 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 20:46 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > Hmm, well to his defense, he isn't adding DIE_NMI_IPI. That code is > > already there. He is just re-arranging it, making it look painfully > > obvious the die_chain probably isn't as efficient as it should be. > > > > I think a bunch of us agree that we need to revamp the NMI notifier to > > make it less wasteful. I was hoping we could do that in a separate patch > > that would be layered on top of Huangs. > > > > Would you object to at least consider having this patch series in a > > work-in-progress git branch that we can build on top of, with the final > > outcome containing an nmi notifier that meets your expectations? > > What's the point of keeping it in a git tree? Its just a few patches. > > We've spend more time talking about this than it would take to actually > do the patch that kills DIE_NMI_IPI. You can kill DIE_NMI_IPI. But you will add at least NMI_PRIORITY_LOCAL (like DIE_NMI_IPI), NMI_PRIORITY_GLOBAL (like original DIE_NMI). So thing is similar, just moved from one place to another place. Best Regards, Huang Ying -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|