[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080618075518.GD4135@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:55:18 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Marin Mitov <mitov@...p.bas.bg>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, akpm@...l.org,
Clark Williams <clark.williams@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi-suse@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][resubmit] x86: enable preemption in delay
* Marin Mitov <mitov@...p.bas.bg> wrote:
> Why not something like that (do keep in mind I am not an expert :-):
>
> static void delay_tsc(unsigned long loops)
> {
> get and store the mask of allowed cpus;
> /* prevent the migration */
> set the mask of allowed cpus to the current cpu only;
> /* is it possible? could it be guaranteed? */
> loop for the delay;
> restore the old mask of allowed cpus;
> }
>
> You have got the idea. Could it be realized? Is it more expensive than
> the current realization? So, comments, please.
hm, changing/saving/restorig cpus_allowed is really considered a 'heavy'
operation compared to preempt_disable(). On a 4096 CPUs box cpus_allowed
is 4096 bits which is half a kilobyte ...
preempt_disable()/enable() on the other hand only touches a single
variable, (thread_info->preempt_count which is an u32)
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