[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:57:38 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Optimize the cpu hotplug locking -v2
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> But the thing is; our sense of NR_CPUS has shifted, where it used to be
> ok to do something like:
>
> for_each_cpu()
>
> With preemption disabled; it gets to be less and less sane to do so,
> simply because 'common' hardware has 256+ CPUs these days. If we cannot
> rely on preempt disable to exclude hotplug, we must use
> get_online_cpus(), but get_online_cpus() is global state and thus cannot
> be used at any sort of frequency.
So ... why not make it _really_ cheap, i.e. the read lock costing nothing,
and tie CPU hotplug to freezing all tasks in the system?
Actual CPU hot unplugging and repluggin is _ridiculously_ rare in a
system, I don't understand how we tolerate _any_ overhead from this utter
slowpath.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists