[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080628104453.GC10872@ucw.cz>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:44:53 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Marin Mitov <mitov@...p.bas.bg>,
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
On Wed 2008-06-18 09:55:18, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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 ...
Time to RLE the bitmap?
<runs> Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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