Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: wrapping (some) ipis in arch/x86/
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Christos Zoulas
Aug 13, 2011, 5:26:20 AM8/13/11
to
In article <8762m4q...@zyx.in>, Cherry G. Mathew <che...@zyx.in> wrote:
>ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/cherry/tmp/wrap_ipi.diff
>
>Hi,
>
>I'd like to ask peoples' opinions about the above patch. This would
>remove a couple of #ifdef XEN/#endif pairs I had to introduce
>lately.
>ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/cherry/tmp/wrap_ipi.diff
>
>Hi,
>
>I'd like to ask peoples' opinions about the above patch. This would
>remove a couple of #ifdef XEN/#endif pairs I had to introduce
>lately.
If those are performance critical, perhaps they should be inlined?
christos
--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-...@muc.de
Cherry G. Mathew
Aug 13, 2011, 5:39:34 AM8/13/11
to
On 13 August 2011 11:26, Christos Zoulas <chri...@astron.com> wrote:
> In article <8762m4q...@zyx.in>, Cherry G. Mathew <che...@zyx.in> wrote:
>>ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/cherry/tmp/wrap_ipi.diff
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'd like to ask peoples' opinions about the above patch. This would
>>remove a couple of #ifdef XEN/#endif pairs I had to introduce
>>lately.
>
> If those are performance critical, perhaps they should be inlined?
> In article <8762m4q...@zyx.in>, Cherry G. Mathew <che...@zyx.in> wrote:
>>ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/cherry/tmp/wrap_ipi.diff
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'd like to ask peoples' opinions about the above patch. This would
>>remove a couple of #ifdef XEN/#endif pairs I had to introduce
>>lately.
>
> If those are performance critical, perhaps they should be inlined?
I don't think they are - the first is a HALT ipi and the second
"kicks" other sleeping CPUS via cpu_needs_resched()
--
~Cherry
Christos Zoulas
Aug 13, 2011, 5:45:30 AM8/13/11
to
In article <CAEmhiu7cetkMHgK=F1fzt2R9KTb8q0csyEA=1-m+-VW...@mail.gmail.com>,
Cherry G. Mathew <cherry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 13 August 2011 11:26, Christos Zoulas <chri...@astron.com> wrote:
Cherry G. Mathew <cherry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 13 August 2011 11:26, Christos Zoulas <chri...@astron.com> wrote:
>> In article <8762m4q...@zyx.in>, Cherry G. Mathew <che...@zyx.in> wrote:
>>>ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/cherry/tmp/wrap_ipi.diff
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I'd like to ask peoples' opinions about the above patch. This would
>>>remove a couple of #ifdef XEN/#endif pairs I had to introduce
>>>lately.
>>
>> If those are performance critical, perhaps they should be inlined?
>
>
>>>ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/cherry/tmp/wrap_ipi.diff
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I'd like to ask peoples' opinions about the above patch. This would
>>>remove a couple of #ifdef XEN/#endif pairs I had to introduce
>>>lately.
>>
>> If those are performance critical, perhaps they should be inlined?
>
>
>I don't think they are - the first is a HALT ipi and the second
>"kicks" other sleeping CPUS via cpu_needs_resched()
>"kicks" other sleeping CPUS via cpu_needs_resched()
So the first one isn't, but how often is the second one called?
Cherry G. Mathew
Aug 13, 2011, 7:47:52 AM8/13/11
to
On 13 August 2011 11:45, Christos Zoulas <chri...@astron.com> wrote:
> In article <CAEmhiu7cetkMHgK=F1fzt2R9KTb8q0csyEA=1-m+-VW...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Cherry G. Mathew <cherry....@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <CAEmhiu7cetkMHgK=F1fzt2R9KTb8q0csyEA=1-m+-VW...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Cherry G. Mathew <cherry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 13 August 2011 11:26, Christos Zoulas <chri...@astron.com> wrote:
>>> In article <8762m4q...@zyx.in>, Cherry G. Mathew <che...@zyx.in> wrote:
>>>>ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/cherry/tmp/wrap_ipi.diff
>>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>I'd like to ask peoples' opinions about the above patch. This would
>>>>remove a couple of #ifdef XEN/#endif pairs I had to introduce
>>>>lately.
>>>
>>> If those are performance critical, perhaps they should be inlined?
>>
>>
>>>>ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/cherry/tmp/wrap_ipi.diff
>>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>I'd like to ask peoples' opinions about the above patch. This would
>>>>remove a couple of #ifdef XEN/#endif pairs I had to introduce
>>>>lately.
>>>
>>> If those are performance critical, perhaps they should be inlined?
>>
>>
>>I don't think they are - the first is a HALT ipi and the second
>>"kicks" other sleeping CPUS via cpu_needs_resched()
>
>>"kicks" other sleeping CPUS via cpu_needs_resched()
>
> So the first one isn't, but how often is the second one called?
>
>
Once per tick at worst.
--
~Cherry
Christos Zoulas
Aug 13, 2011, 8:31:16 AM8/13/11
to
In article <CAEmhiu6BWw4dMRekus-Psdjs...@mail.gmail.com>,
Cherry G. Mathew <cherry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 13 August 2011 11:45, Christos Zoulas <chri...@astron.com> wrote:
>> In article
><CAEmhiu7cetkMHgK=F1fzt2R9KTb8q0csyEA=1-m+-VW...@mail.gmail.com>,
>> Cherry G. Mathew <cherry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 13 August 2011 11:26, Christos Zoulas <chri...@astron.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <8762m4q...@zyx.in>, Cherry G. Mathew <che...@zyx.in> wrote:
>>>>>ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/cherry/tmp/wrap_ipi.diff
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd like to ask peoples' opinions about the above patch. This would
>>>>>remove a couple of #ifdef XEN/#endif pairs I had to introduce
>>>>>lately.
>>>>
>>>> If those are performance critical, perhaps they should be inlined?
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think they are - the first is a HALT ipi and the second
>>>"kicks" other sleeping CPUS via cpu_needs_resched()
>>
>> So the first one isn't, but how often is the second one called?
>>
>
>Once per tick at worst.
Cherry G. Mathew <cherry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 13 August 2011 11:45, Christos Zoulas <chri...@astron.com> wrote:
>> In article
><CAEmhiu7cetkMHgK=F1fzt2R9KTb8q0csyEA=1-m+-VW...@mail.gmail.com>,
>> Cherry G. Mathew <cherry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 13 August 2011 11:26, Christos Zoulas <chri...@astron.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <8762m4q...@zyx.in>, Cherry G. Mathew <che...@zyx.in> wrote:
>>>>>ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/cherry/tmp/wrap_ipi.diff
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd like to ask peoples' opinions about the above patch. This would
>>>>>remove a couple of #ifdef XEN/#endif pairs I had to introduce
>>>>>lately.
>>>>
>>>> If those are performance critical, perhaps they should be inlined?
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think they are - the first is a HALT ipi and the second
>>>"kicks" other sleeping CPUS via cpu_needs_resched()
>>
>> So the first one isn't, but how often is the second one called?
>>
>
>Once per tick at worst.
Then, I guess it is ok.
christos
Mindaugas Rasiukevicius
Aug 13, 2011, 8:35:15 AM8/13/11
to
chri...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote:
> In article <8762m4q...@zyx.in>, Cherry G. Mathew <che...@zyx.in>
> wrote:
> >ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/cherry/tmp/wrap_ipi.diff
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'd like to ask peoples' opinions about the above patch. This would
> >remove a couple of #ifdef XEN/#endif pairs I had to introduce
> >lately.
>
> If those are performance critical, perhaps they should be inlined?
>
> In article <8762m4q...@zyx.in>, Cherry G. Mathew <che...@zyx.in>
> wrote:
> >ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/cherry/tmp/wrap_ipi.diff
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'd like to ask peoples' opinions about the above patch. This would
> >remove a couple of #ifdef XEN/#endif pairs I had to introduce
> >lately.
>
> If those are performance critical, perhaps they should be inlined?
>
IPIs are relatively expensive operations, there are no need to inline
the routines at all.
--
Mindaugas
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
0 new messages