[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090413181126.GA6669@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:11:26 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: mmotm 2009-04-10-02-21 uploaded - forkbombed by work_for_cpu
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > static void drv_write(struct drv_cmd *cmd)
> > {
> > - unsigned int i;
> > + unsigned int cpu;
> >
> > - for_each_cpu(i, cmd->mask) {
> > - work_on_cpu(i, do_drv_write, cmd);
> > - }
> > + for_each_cpu(cpu, cmd->mask)
> > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, do_drv_write, cmd, 1);
>
> Ok, that's just -wrong-.
>
> Doesn't anybody else see anything odd in doing
>
> for_each_cpu(cpu, cmd->mask)
> smp_call_function_single(cpu, ..);
>
> and react to it?
>
> IOW, why not just do
>
> smp_call_function_many(cmd->mask, do_drv_write, cmd, 1);
>
> here?
Uhm, yes. The ancient version did:
for_each_cpu_mask(i, cmd->mask) {
set_cpus_allowed(current, cpumask_of_cpu(i));
do_drv_write(cmd);
}
and we just kept that pattern while somewhat mindlessly converting
it around, and never realized how it collapses to a nice masked API
version when the right IPI-call primitive is used.
Ingo
--
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