[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080827.014457.140528687.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: nickpiggin@...oo.com.au
Cc: travis@....com, davej@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Alan.Brunelle@...com, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
rjw@...k.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com, steiner@....com,
cl@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c -
bisected
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:47:14 +1000
> Yeah, I see. That's stupid isn't it? (Well, I guess it was completely
> sane when cpumasks were word sized ;))
>
> Hopefully that accounts for a significant chunk...
There is a lot of indirect costs that are hard to see as well.
Two things a lot of these cross-call dispatch paths do is:
1) Clear self-cpu
2) AND with cpus_online
#1 can normally be a simple bit clear, but some places can also
implement this with something like "cpus_andn(X, cpumask_of_cpu(cpu))"
It's simply easier to move those two things down to the bottom of
the APIC programming code, they just loop over the cpumask doing
an expensive APIC I/O operation anyways, might as well overlap it
with these "skip self-cpu" and "skip not-online cpus" checks.
And oh yeah we get the stack wastage fixed too, isn't what what we
were talking about? :-)
--
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