On Sun, 2018-07-29 at 08:36 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2018, at 5:00 AM, Rik van Riel <r...@surriel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 19:57 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Rik van Riel <r...@surriel.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Introduce a variant of on_each_cpu_cond that iterates only over
> > > > the
> > > > CPUs in a cpumask, in order to avoid making callbacks for every
> > > > single
> > > > CPU in the system when we only need to test a subset.
> > > Nice.
> > > Although, if you want to be really fancy, you could optimize this
> > > (or
> > > add a variant) that does the callback on the local CPU in
> > > parallel
> > > with the remote ones. That would give a small boost to TLB
> > > flushes.
> >
> > The test_func callbacks are not run remotely, but on
> > the local CPU, before deciding who to send callbacks
> > to.
> >
> > The actual IPIs are sent in parallel, if the cpumask
> > allocation succeeds (it always should in many kernel
> > configurations, and almost always in the rest).
> >
>
> What I meant is that on_each_cpu_mask does:
>
> smp_call_function_many(mask, func, info, wait);
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mask)) {
> unsigned long flags;
> local_irq_save(flags); func(info);
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> }
>
> So it IPIs all the remote CPUs in parallel, then waits, then does the
> local work. In principle, the local flush could be done after
> triggering the IPIs but before they all finish.Sure, moving the function call for the local CPU into smp_call_function_many might be a nice optimization. A quick grep suggests it touch stuff all over the tree, so it could be a nice Outreachy intern project :) -- All Rights Reversed.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
