On 09/28/2012 01:49 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 12:02 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
>>
>> Peter:
>>
>> Maybe the patch doesn't looks perfect for this issue.
>> So I am wondering if the following patch is better, if we don't care
>> the irq_tlb
>> was counted again in irq_call?
>>
>
>
On 09/28/2012 01:49 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/27/2012 12:02 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
Peter:
Maybe the patch doesn't looks perfect for this issue.
So I am wondering if the following patch is better, if we don't care
the irq_tlb
was counted again in irq_call?
Tomoki-san's patch looked
On 09/27/2012 12:02 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
Peter:
Maybe the patch doesn't looks perfect for this issue.
So I am wondering if the following patch is better, if we don't care the irq_tlb
was counted again in irq_call?
Tomoki-san's patch looked sane to me, I should just apply it.
-hpa
>>
>> the 3.6 kernel will closed soon. it will be great to has this patch in.
>> So, could you like to refresh your patch with popular comments format? :)
>
> Fixed patch is below.
> Thank you for the review again.
>
Peter:
Maybe the patch doesn't looks perfect for this issue.
So I am
the 3.6 kernel will closed soon. it will be great to has this patch in.
So, could you like to refresh your patch with popular comments format? :)
Fixed patch is below.
Thank you for the review again.
Peter:
Maybe the patch doesn't looks perfect for this issue.
So I am wondering if
On 09/27/2012 12:02 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
Peter:
Maybe the patch doesn't looks perfect for this issue.
So I am wondering if the following patch is better, if we don't care the irq_tlb
was counted again in irq_call?
Tomoki-san's patch looked sane to me, I should just apply it.
-hpa
On 09/26/2012 10:11 AM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On 2012/09/25 11:57, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 09/24/2012 09:37 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/20/2012 04:50 PM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
>>>
unsigned int irq_resched_count;
unsigned int irq_call_count;
+ /*
Hi Alex,
On 2012/09/25 11:57, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 09:37 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
>
>> On 09/20/2012 04:50 PM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
>>
>>> unsigned int irq_resched_count;
>>> unsigned int irq_call_count;
>>> + /* irq_tlb_count is double-counted in irq_call_count, so it must be
Hi Alex,
On 2012/09/25 11:57, Alex Shi wrote:
On 09/24/2012 09:37 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 09/20/2012 04:50 PM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
unsigned int irq_resched_count;
unsigned int irq_call_count;
+ /* irq_tlb_count is double-counted in irq_call_count, so it must be
+
On 09/26/2012 10:11 AM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 2012/09/25 11:57, Alex Shi wrote:
On 09/24/2012 09:37 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 09/20/2012 04:50 PM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
unsigned int irq_resched_count;
unsigned int irq_call_count;
+ /* irq_tlb_count is double-counted
On 09/20/2012 04:50 PM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
> unsigned int irq_resched_count;
> unsigned int irq_call_count;
> + /* irq_tlb_count is double-counted in irq_call_count, so it must be
> +subtracted from irq_call_count when displaying irq_call_count */
> unsigned int
On 09/20/2012 04:50 PM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
unsigned int irq_resched_count;
unsigned int irq_call_count;
+ /* irq_tlb_count is double-counted in irq_call_count, so it must be
+subtracted from irq_call_count when displaying irq_call_count */
unsigned int
>> If is it better to move above explanation to irq_call_cnt definition
place: harirq.h?
>
> Agreed.
>
> In the patch below, I reduced the redundant comments.
Acked-by: Alex Shi
>
> --
> As TLB shootdown requests to other CPU cores are now using function call
> interrupts, TLB shootdowns
If is it better to move above explanation to irq_call_cnt definition
place: harirq.h?
Agreed.
In the patch below, I reduced the redundant comments.
Acked-by: Alex Shi alex@intel.com
--
As TLB shootdown requests to other CPU cores are now using function call
interrupts, TLB
Hi Alex,
thank you for the review.
>> sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_call_count;
>> - sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_tlb_count;
>> + /* irq_tlb_count is already added to irq_call_count */
>
>redundant comments here?
>> @@ -98,6 +98,9 @@ static void flush_tlb_func(void *info)
>> {
>>
Hi Alex,
thank you for the review.
sum += irq_stats(cpu)-irq_call_count;
- sum += irq_stats(cpu)-irq_tlb_count;
+ /* irq_tlb_count is already added to irq_call_count */
redundant comments here?
@@ -98,6 +98,9 @@ static void flush_tlb_func(void *info)
{
struct flush_tlb_info
> @@ -147,7 +148,7 @@ u64 arch_irq_stat_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_resched_count;
> sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_call_count;
> - sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_tlb_count;
> + /* irq_tlb_count is already added to irq_call_count */
As TLB shootdown requests to other CPU cores are now done using function call
interrupts, TLB shootdowns entry in /proc/interrupts is always shown as 0.
This behavior change was introduced by commit 52aec3308db8 ("x86/tlb:
replace INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR by CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR").
This patch
As TLB shootdown requests to other CPU cores are now done using function call
interrupts, TLB shootdowns entry in /proc/interrupts is always shown as 0.
This behavior change was introduced by commit 52aec3308db8 (x86/tlb:
replace INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR by CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR).
This patch reverts
@@ -147,7 +148,7 @@ u64 arch_irq_stat_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
sum += irq_stats(cpu)-irq_resched_count;
sum += irq_stats(cpu)-irq_call_count;
- sum += irq_stats(cpu)-irq_tlb_count;
+ /* irq_tlb_count is already added to irq_call_count */
redundant
20 matches
Mail list logo
