mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: implement multiple queues for smp function call IPIs
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:55:57 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200807301455.57507.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <488FA8A9.6000005@goop.org>

On Wednesday 30 July 2008 09:32, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> This adds 8 queues for smp_call_function(), in order to avoid a
> bottleneck on a single global lock and list for function calls.  When
> initiating a function call, the sender chooses a queue based on its
> own processor id (if there are more than 8 processors, they hash down
> to 8 queues).  It then sends an IPI to the corresponding vector for
> that queue to each target CPU.  The target CPUs use the vector number
> to determine which queue they should scan for work.
>
> This should give smp_call_function the same performance
> characteristics as the original x86-64 cross-cpu tlb flush code, which
> used the same scheme.

Yep, I'm much happier if you go this way to do it. This way hopefully
eventually we can extend the call function infrastructure to also
generalise the UV type payload-IPIs and fold all that in here too.

I don't _think_ there should any longer be any reason why it should
be slower than the special case code (at least nothing fundamental
that I can see).

Actually it should have a chance to be faster because we should be able
to queue up multiple tlb flushes into each global call queue, rather
than executing them strictly one at a time under the tlbstate lock like
we do now.

Anyway it looks like Andi is reviewing the fine details, so I'm happy
with this if he is :) Thanks!

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-07-30  4:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-07-29 23:32 Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-29 23:43 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-30  0:13 ` Andi Kleen
2008-07-30  0:44   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-30  4:55 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2008-07-31 22:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-31 22:12   ` Andi Kleen
2008-07-31 22:23   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-31 22:42     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-01  4:58       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-01  9:09         ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-01 14:17           ` Andi Kleen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200807301455.57507.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome