LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <>
To: Nick Piggin <>
Cc: Andi Kleen <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] x86-64 new smp_call_function design
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:45:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

* Nick Piggin <> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 04:02:10PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Nick Piggin <> wrote:
> > 
> > > > the two structures are quite similar in size and role - why not have 
> > > > a type field and handle them largely together? I think we should try 
> > > > to preserve a single queue and a single vector - that would remove a 
> > > > number of ugly special-cases from the patch.
> > > 
> > > A single queue will kill one of the big fundamental scalability 
> > > improvements of the call_single. That's the problem.
> > 
> > hm, indeed. Then how about the other way around: couldnt the normal 
> > all-cpus SMP function call be implemented transparently via using 
> > smp_call_single() calls?
> That's possible, but it is slower and less scalable on my 8-way, and
> I suspect it might become even slower than the generic code on larger
> systems.

i dont mean "implement call-all as a series of call-single" calls, but 
use just a single queue of requests and differentiate on the data 
structure level. Right now you use the vector # as the differentiator.

but ... no strong feelings, i'm just playing the devil's advocate :) 
Your work is great (and i now see that i forgot to state this clearly 
enough in my first mail - i thought i to be obvious, based on your 
numbers!), i'm really just trying to micro-optimize the concept.

Could you try to unify it with the 32-bit code, preferably into a 
separate, unified arch/x86/kernel/smp.c file? Such an approach would 
make it into x86.git in a heartbeat :)

> > The vector duplication is really ugly and feels wrong.
> Why?

it's ~0.5% of our irq vector space? :-)

we could also try to implement a "NOP" type of single call [ using a nop 
callback is one of the easiest possibilities there ;) ] - which would 
allow us to eliminate the special reschedule vector as well. That means 
we could consolidate all the SMP cross-calls into a single vector.

OTOH, i see how you save multiplexing/demultiplexing complexity on both 
the sending and the receiving side by using the separate vectors. So i 
guess, if it's fast enough, we should indeed do your two vectors 
approach and also merge the reschedule special vector into the 
single-call path and thus have no effect on the size of the vector 
space. (no need to add a new vector even - just rename the reschedule 
vector to single-call vector)


  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-28  8:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-27 12:42 Nick Piggin
2008-02-27 13:04 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-27 13:07   ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-27 13:33     ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-16 14:33       ` Avi Kivity
2008-02-27 13:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-27 13:50   ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-27 15:02     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-27 22:14       ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-28  8:45         ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-02-28 12:55           ` Andi Kleen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [rfc][patch] x86-64 new smp_call_function design' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).