On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:40:25 +0530 Gautham R Shenoy <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 09:58:31AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > local_irq_enable can cause interrupts to be taken which could > > take significant amount of processing time. The idle process > > should set its polling flag before this, so another process that > > wakes it during this time will not have to send an IPI. > > > > Expand the TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG coverage to as large as possible. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> > > Looks good. Were you able to see this make a difference in any of the > tests ? No I didn't measure a difference or have a test case where this was noticable. I think on a workload with some IO interrupts as well as cross-CPU wakeups, then statistically we should see some improvement in IPI rates with this patch. Thanks, Nick
