RE: [ia64] Question on __ARCH_WANT_UNLOCKED_CTXSW

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 13:46 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > happen to remember what the perceived benefit of using
> > __ARCH_WANT_UNLOCKED_CTXSW was about?
> 
> No - digging around the code hasn't rung any bells for me either.
> 
> Perhaps just general goodness for not holding a lock for
> longer than we need to?  But that would imply some case where
> someone else could do something useful by being able to grab
> the lock when we drop it. About the only thing I can think
> of is that it would allow tasks to be re-balanced just a
> teeny bit earlier --- but re-balancing ought to be somewhat
> rare, yes?

Mostly yes, except remote wakeups, however that got a complete overhaul
in 3.0. Instead of taking the remote rq->lock we now enqueue the task on
a list and IPI the thing, then let the IPI do the remote enqueue and
trigger the reschedule.

So it might make sense to re-evaluate this on ia64 like Ken suggested..
then again, who has a large ia64 box and is still willing to put time
in? 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/