[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:43:55 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Optimize the cpu hotplug locking -v2
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:36:31 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:00:44 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > It's been ages since I looked at this stuff :( Although it isn't used
> > much, memory hotplug manages to use stop_machine() on the add/remove
> > (ie, "writer") side and nothing at all on the "reader" side. Is there
> > anything which fundamentally prevents cpu hotplug from doing the same?
>
>
> I would think that memory hotplug may require stop machine as all CPUs
> may touch that memory.
Sure.
> But we would like to remove stomp machine from
> CPU hotplug.
We do? That's news. It wasn't mentioned in the changelog and should
have been. Why?
> Why prevent all CPUs from running when we want to remove
> one?
So get_online_cpus() goes away. Nothing is more scalable than nothing!
--
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