[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <488FB976.7080803@goop.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:44:38 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] generic smp function call: add multiple queues for
scaling
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Ah I see the locking is here. Never mind the earlier comment.
>
>
>> +#define NQUEUES CONFIG_GENERIC_SMP_QUEUES
>> +#else
>> +#define NQUEUES 1
>> +#endif
>> +
>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct call_single_queue, call_single_queue);
>> -static LIST_HEAD(call_function_queue);
>> -__cacheline_aligned_in_smp DEFINE_SPINLOCK(call_function_lock);
>> +struct queue {
>> + struct list_head list;
>> + spinlock_t lock;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static __cacheline_aligned_in_smp struct queue
>> call_function_queues[NQUEUES];
>>
>
> Hmm are you sure this aligns the individual elements and not the whole
> array?
>
Hm, that's a point. I guess the __cacheline_aligned_in_smp should be on
the struct definition.
>> +static int __init init_smp_function_call(void)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for(i = 0; i < NQUEUES; i++) {
>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&call_function_queues[i].list);
>> + spin_lock_init(&call_function_queues[i].lock);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +early_initcall(init_smp_function_call);
>>
>
> You can avoid all that init gunk by using the [0 ... NQUEUES] = ..
> gcc extension in the initializer.
>
Are you sure? I tried using it, but couldn't work out how. Remember
the list head init needs to point to itself, which means it's not
constant across the array.
J
--
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