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

[Nick Piggin]

On Friday 01 August 2008 02:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > The overhead of that is a smp_mb() and a list_empty() check in
> > generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt() if there is indeed no
> > work to do.
>
> that would be a miniscule cost - cacheline is read-shared amongst cpus
> so there's no real bouncing there. So i'm all for it ...

smp_mb would cost some cycles. So would the branch mispredict because
list_empty would otherwise normally be taken I think. q likely is not
in cache either.

I'm not in favour.
--
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/