On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 04:57 -0500, Milton Miller wrote: > [me looks closely at patch and finds early return] Yeah, in case there's nothing to do, all the old conditions hold and irq_enter isn't strictly required. > > > > We could of course add it in sched.c since the logic recurses just > > fine.. its not pretty though.. :/ > > > > Thoughts? > > > Many architectures already have an irq_enter becuase they have a single > interrupt to the cpu for all external causes including software; they > do the irq_enter before reading from the irq controller to know the > reason for the interrupt. A quick glance at irq_enter and irq_exit > shows they will do several things twice when nested, even if that > is safe. Agreed, and its a worry I had. The flip side is that doing it in the arch code means I have to audit all the archs again (not that I mind too much, but it takes a wee bit longer), also I'll have to look at all the code using this IPI for the old purpose. > Are there really that many calls with the empty list that it makes > sense to avoid and optimize this on x86 while penalizing the several > architectures with a nested irq_enter and exit? I _think_ the now predominant case is this remote wakeup, so adding irq_enter() to all arch paths isn't too big of a problem, but I need to make sure. > When it also duplicates > sched_ttwu_pending (because it can't be common with the additional tests)? yeah, sad that. > We said the perf mon callback (now irq_work) had to be under irq_enter. Correct, anything that actually does something in the handler needs irq_enter, the problem with the resched ipi was that it never actually did anything and the idle loop exit took care of the no_hz funnies. > Can we get some numbers for how often the two cases occur on some > various workloads? Sure, let me stick some counters in. -- 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