Question about IPI

Yuxin Ren ryx at
Thu Jul 24 23:41:14 CEST 2014


That happens during IPC loop.
I am pretty there is no migration during my IPC.
However the helping lock will cause migration, right?
Bur I do not think this will happen in my case.
Do you think something can delay the dequeue operation so that
the __pending_rqq is still in the queue when next request happens?
Because after I add some delay in the IPC path (add printf somewhere),
the number of IPIs is exactly 4 for flex-page mapping IPC, and 2 for simple
data-only IPC.

Thanks a lot.

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Adam Lackorzynski <
adam at> wrote:

> On Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 10:09:27 +0800, Yuxin Ren wrote:
> > I think I have found the reson. But I cannot understand the logic of that
> > code.
> > In the Context::enqueue_drq method, there is a piece of code to determin
> if
> > IPI is needed.
> >           if (!_pending_rq.queued())
> >           {
> >               if (!q.first())
> >                     ipi = true;
> >               q.enqueue(&_pending_rq);
> >           }
> > In my understanding, the logic behind this is to check if _pending_rq is
> > queued first, if it is queued, it's done; else enqueue it.
> > And check if the queue is empty. If it is empty, IPI is needed, else this
> > request can be picked up by IPI of other request.
> > The problem is I cannot image in what case the _pending_rq is already
> > queued, at least in my program.
> > My scenario is: there is only one client and one server in different
> core,
> > and client sends ipc in a tight loop. I think each time the server
> receives
> > the request, it should dequeue _pending_rq, so it is not possible for
> > client to see the _pending_rq is queued when it wants to ipc.But I
> observed
> > this indeed happan sometime.
> As I read the code this part is handling the case of migration that
> might happen to the thread. Your description does not like like threads
> would move between cores. Do you see this during your IPC loop or
> before?
> Adam
> --
> Adam                 adam at
>   Lackorzynski
> _______________________________________________
> l4-hackers mailing list
> l4-hackers at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the l4-hackers mailing list