[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080810213421.70f61034@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:34:21 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, npiggin@...e.de,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stack and rcu interaction bug in
smp_call_function_mask()
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:26:18 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Nice debugging work.
> >
> > I'd suggest something like the attached (untested) patch as the
> > simple fix for now.
> >
> > I expect the benefits from the less synchronized,
> > multiple-in-flight-data global queue will still outweigh the costs
> > of dynamic allocations. But if worst comes to worst then we just go
> > back to a globally synchronous one-at-a-time implementation, but
> > that would be pretty sad!
>
> What if we went the other way and strictly used queue-per-cpu? It
> means multicast would require multiple enqueueing operations, which
> is a bit heavy, but it does make dequeuing and lifetime management
> very simple...
as long as send-to-all is still one apic operation.. otherwise it gets
*really* expensive....
(just think about waking all cpus up out of their C-states.. one by one
getting the full exit latency sequentially)
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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