[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080228221430.GA22958@Krystal>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:14:30 -0500
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Max Krasnyanskiy <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] add ALL_CPUS option to stop_machine_run()
* Max Krasnyanskiy (maxk@...lcomm.com) wrote:
> Jason Baron wrote:
>> -allow stop_mahcine_run() to call a function on all cpus. Calling
>> stop_machine_run() with a 'ALL_CPUS' invokes this new behavior.
>> stop_machine_run() proceeds as normal until the calling cpu has
>> invoked 'fn'. Then, we tell all the other cpus to call 'fn'.
>
> Jason, we're actually trying to reduce the usage of the stop_machine in
> general. It's a very big hammer that kills latencies and stuff. It'd be
> nice if we did not introduce any more dependencies on it. I guess in some
> case there is simply no other way to handle what need to do. But please
> think twice
> (or more :)).
>
> Max
>
>
I have a "more complex" immediate value implementation that does not
depend on such heavy lock. I made this simplified version because Rusty
preferred it, although I say from the beginning that it kills interrupt
latency. I could propose the atomic, nmi-safe version directly if enough
people are in favor of it.
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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