Re: [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushesto use function calls [POST 2]

[Ingo Molnar]

* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > At least we could/should perhaps standardize/generalize all the 
> > 'specific' IPI handlers into the smp_function_call() framework: if 
> > function address equals to a pre-cooked IPI entry point we could 
> > call that function without a kmalloc. As these are all hardwired, 
> > __builtin_is_constant_p() could come to the help as well. Hm?
> 
> No, it's not just the function call but also payload, list entry for 
> queue, scoreboard of CPUs have processed it, a lock, etc etc etc.
> 
> smp_call_function is *always* going to be heavier than a hard wired 
> special case, no matter how it is implemented. For such low level 
> performance critical functionality, I miss the days when people were 
> rabid about saving every cycle rather than every line of code ;)

no, i was thinking about really high level hardwiring, i.e. hardwiring 
the _function pointer_ knowledge into smp_function_call().

for example for the reschedule IPI, it would be hardwired on x86 to just 
call into the special IPI handler, via:

  smp_call_function_mask(target_mask, smp_send_reschedule, NULL, 0);

Exactly same cost and call sequence as a direct hardwired-to-IPI 
function call (and the same underlying mechanism) - just consolidated 
around a single cross-call API.

Same for all the other special cross-CPU handlers. That way some 
architectures would hardwire it, some wouldnt, etc.

	Ingo
--
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/