Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> This change has been on the x86 side for ages, and not even Ingo made a
>> peep about it ;)
>>
>
> Mmmm, last time I looked, x86 didn't scale to any interesting number
> of CPUs :-)
>
Well, I guess you need all those CPUs if scanning a 64-word bitvector
takes anything like the time it takes to do an IPI...
> I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't have both interfaces, merely
> questioning why adding what to me seems like an unnecessary performance
> hit for the classic case of the call.
I don't mind how many interfaces there are, so long as there only needs
to be one place to hook to plug in the Xen version of
smp_call_function_whatever. Perhaps the answer is to just hook the IPI
mechanism itself rather than the whole of smp_call_function_mask...
Have you looked at Jens Axboe's patches to make all this stuff a lot
more arch-common?
J
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
