[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200803031032.03160.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:32:02 +1100
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Max Krasnyanskiy <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kathy Staples <kathy.staples@....ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] add ALL_CPUS option to stop_machine_run()
On Friday 29 February 2008 09:09:37 Max Krasnyanskiy 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 :)).
Well, by definition modifying an immediate value should be very rare, so it's
a reasonable candidate.
But stop_machine needs work. It should not be as heavy as it is.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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