[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 15:00:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, williams@...hat.com,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, fweisbec@...hat.com,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: question about RCU dynticks_nesting
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 05:34:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:53:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:39:23PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > But in non-preemptible RCU, we have PREEMPT=n, so there is no preempt
> > > counter in production kernels. Even if there was, we have to sample this
> > > on other CPUs, so the overhead of preempt_disable() and preempt_enable()
> > > would be where kernel entry/exit is, so I expect that this would be a
> > > net loss in overall performance.
> >
> > We unconditionally have the preempt_count, its just not used much for
> > PREEMPT_COUNT=n kernels.
>
> We have the field, you mean? I might be missing something, but it still
> appears to me thta preempt_disable() does nothing for PREEMPT=n kernels.
> So what am I missing?
There's another layer of accessors that can in fact manipulate the
preempt_count even for !PREEMPT_COUNT kernels. They are currently used
by things like pagefault_disable().
--
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