Re: x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI vector?

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Resend to cc: Andi on an address which actually works.

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Now that normal smp_function_call is no longer an enormous bottleneck, 
> is there still value in having a specialised IPI vector for tlb 
> flushes?  It seems like quite a lot of duplicate code.
>
> The 64-bit tlb flush multiplexes the various cpus across 8 vectors to 
> increase scalability. If this is a big issue, then the smp function 
> call code can (and should) do the same thing.  (Though looking at it 
> more closely, the way the code uses the 8 vectors is actually a less 
> general way of doing what smp_call_function is doing anyway.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> (And uv should definitely be hooking pvops if it wants its own 
> flush_tlb_others; vsmp sets the precedent for a subarch-like use of 
> pvops.)
>
>    J
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/