On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Ashok Raj wrote:
> Andrew: Could you help test staging in -mm so we can get some wider testing
> from those interested.
>
> *Sore Point*: Andi doesnt agree with one patch that removes ipi-broadcast
> and uses only online map cpus receive IPI's. This is much simpler approach to
> handle instead of trying to remove the ill effects of IPI broadcast to CPUs in
> offline state.
>
> Initial concern from Andi was IPI performance, but some primitive test with a
> good number of samples doesnt seem to indicate any degration at all, infact the
> results seem identical. (Barring any operator errors :-( ).
>
> It would be nice to hear other opinions as well, hopefuly we can close on
> what what the right approach in this case. Link to an earlier discussion
> on the topic.
I don't think it's worth the extra boot time complexity to use the boot
workaround and i'm not convinced the extra mask against cpu_online_map
slows down that path enough to show up compared to waiting for remote
processor IPI handling to commence/complete.
Thanks,
Zwane
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
