Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753028Ab2B0JvW (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 04:51:22 -0500 Received: from mail-qw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.216.53]:51191 "EHLO mail-qw0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752033Ab2B0JvV (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 04:51:21 -0500 Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of yong.zhang0@gmail.com designates 10.229.76.149 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=yong.zhang0@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=yong.zhang0@gmail.com Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:51:00 +0800 From: Yong Zhang To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Venki Pallipadi , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Suresh Siddha , Aaron Durbin , Paul Turner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Extend mwait idle to optimize away CAL and RES interrupts to an idle CPU -v1 Message-ID: <20120227095100.GC1112@zhy> Reply-To: Yong Zhang References: <1329957415-15239-1-git-send-email-venki@google.com> <1329989454.24994.57.camel@twins> <20120224054150.GA17543@zhy> <20120224061350.GB17543@zhy> <1330331881.11248.28.camel@twins> <20120227090819.GB1112@zhy> <1330335058.11248.37.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1330335058.11248.37.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1480 Lines: 38 On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:30:58AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 17:08 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 09:38:01AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 14:13 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote: > > > > > > > This remind me that we should have moved the irq_enter()/irq_exit() to > > > > each arch's related irq handler. > > > > see: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=130709505700821&w=2 > > > > > > > > So Peter, is there someone alread on it? or it still worth doing now? > > > > > > trouble was that some people didn't feel comfortable adding that > > > overhead to plain resched IPIs that didn't need to do anything. > > > > Any ideas on where the plain resched IPIs come from? > > remote wakeups that don't queue I guess. > > IIRC I looked at it a while back and while not in the majority there > were still a few (I only added counters, didn't look where they came > from). > > However since 518cd623 there'd be a lot more I guess.. > > Feel free to investigate. Also, some non-sched users of the resched ipi > exist, eg. KVM uses it to kick a remote vcpu out from guest mode. Thanks for the detail. Will try to find if there is something interesting. Thanks, Yong -- 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/