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 _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
