linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 27/28] rcu: Allow dyntick-idle mode for CPUs with callbacks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Nov 2011 21:47:44 -0700
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
	patches@...aro.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 27/28] rcu: Allow dyntick-idle mode for
 CPUs with callbacks

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:30:48PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>  /*
> - * Check to see if any future RCU-related work will need to be done
> - * by the current CPU, even if none need be done immediately, returning
> - * 1 if so.  This function is part of the RCU implementation; it is -not-
> - * an exported member of the RCU API.
> + * Allow the CPU to enter dyntick-idle mode if either: (1) There are no
> + * callbacks on this CPU, (2) this CPU has not yet attempted to enter
> + * dyntick-idle mode, and (3) this CPU is in the process of attempting to
> + * enter dyntick-idle mode.  Otherwise, if we have recently tried and failed

This sentence doesn't quite work; "if either...and..." should become
"either...or" or "if...and".

> + * to enter dyntick-idle mode, we refuse to try to enter it.  After all,
> + * it is better to incur scheduling-clock interrupts than to spin
> + * continuously for the same time duration!
> + */
> +int rcu_needs_cpu(int cpu)
> +{
> +	/* If no callbacks, RCU doesn't need the CPU. */
> +	if (!rcu_cpu_has_callbacks(cpu))
> +		return 0;
> +	/* Otherwise, RCU needs the CPU only if it recently tried and failed. */
> +	return per_cpu(rcu_dyntick_holdoff, cpu) == jiffies;

Sigh, one more use of jiffies. :(

- Josh Triplett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/