[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1219679492.8515.77.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:51:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues
rather than rcu
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 10:46 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > If we combine these two cases, and flip the counter as soon as we've
> > enqueued one callback, unless we're already waiting for a grace period
> > to end - which gives us a longer window to collect callbacks.
> >
> > And then the rcu_read_unlock() can do:
> >
> > if (dec_and_zero(my_counter) && my_index == dying)
> > raise_softirq(RCU)
> >
> > to fire off the callback stuff.
> >
> > /me ponders - there must be something wrong with that...
> >
> > Aaah, yes, the dec_and_zero is non trivial due to the fact that its a
> > distributed counter. Bugger..
>
> Then lets make it per cpu. If we get the cpu ops in then dec_and_zero would be
> very cheap.
Hmm, perhaps that might work for classic RCU, as that disables
preemption and thus the counters should always be balanced.
--
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