From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757272AbYG2KSL (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:18:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754354AbYG2KR5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:17:57 -0400 Received: from smtp102.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.212]:35774 "HELO smtp102.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754023AbYG2KR4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:17:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=iIhjiJsfJkqWKZJ0yw0UaESq3IRdi5Uf4W8UUgGxzMajg9g32hAI4G1RUQcekU7bNVvx9p8/qqkIYoCbC9CXXdX0bs+tNScPYd/WGU426C2yePv5M75v97TOS4KOFuMpzxiW5zl4FIWfhcfeHT8PyOjOX0id/NcOhsJVo/DFeMc= ; X-YMail-OSG: 91sLKwwVM1mznRdghdHjGXdrktWtFOcFdRP1PvgoBx7AJYtEdLWiDPuPUqOule_m1TtfEUuHwVODK2dKYZaMhcuayK.yTBm98k.81TFVjB2B8obIRhTkh1DRrDd_IswI_mM- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: Nick Piggin To: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI vector? Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:17:41 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Ingo Molnar , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Jens Axboe , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" References: <488E534F.2030204@goop.org> <200807292000.30690.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <1217325853.7563.5.camel@twins> In-Reply-To: <1217325853.7563.5.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807292017.42005.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 29 July 2008 20:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 20:00 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Tuesday 29 July 2008 19:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 14:30 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > Not to mention the minor problem that it still deadlocks when called > > > > with interrupts disabled ;) > > > > > > __smp_call_function_single has potential though.. > > > > For reschedule interrupt? I don't really agree. > > Not specifically, for not deadlocking from irq-off, more so. Oh, well yes it already does work from irq-off, so it has already realised its potential :) Not sure exactly what kinds of users it is going to attract, but it should be interesting to see!