> + q = &__get_cpu_var(call_single_queue); > + spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags); > + list_replace_init(&q->list, &list); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
I think you could do that lockless if you use a similar data structure as netchannels (essentially a fixed size single buffer queue with atomic exchange of the first/last pointers) and not using a list. That would avoid at least one bounce for the lock and likely another one for the list manipulation. Also the right way would be to not add a second mechanism for this, but fix the standard smp_call_function_single() to support it. -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/