Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:50:41 +0100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] x86-64 new smp_call_function design
Message-ID: <20080227135041.GC1340@wotan.suse.de>
References: <20080227124217.GA1340@wotan.suse.de> <20080227132713.GA13681@elte.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080227132713.GA13681@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1274
Lines: 41

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 02:27:13PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> > This isn't finished yet, however I'd just like to ask for comments.
> 
> looks really interesting!
> 
> only one fundamental observation:
> 
> > +struct call_data {
> > +	spinlock_t lock;
> > +	struct list_head list;
> >  	void (*func) (void *info);
> >  	void *info;
> > +	unsigned int flags;
> > +	unsigned int refs;
> > +	cpumask_t cpumask;
> > +	struct rcu_head rcu_head;
> >  };
> 
> > +struct call_single_data {
> > +	struct list_head list;
> > +	void (*func) (void *info);
> > +	void *info;
> > +	unsigned int flags;
> > +};
> 
> the two structures are quite similar in size and role - why not have a 
> type field and handle them largely together? I think we should try to 
> preserve a single queue and a single vector - that would remove a number 
> of ugly special-cases from the patch.

A single queue will kill one of the big fundamental scalability
improvements of the call_single. That's the problem.

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