[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090518154241.GA27047@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:42:41 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, davem@...emloft.net,
dada1@...mosbay.com, zbr@...emap.net, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com,
paulus@...ba.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com, jengelh@...ozas.de,
r000n@...0n.net, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] v5 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods
* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > i might be missing something fundamental here, but why not just
> > have per CPU helper threads, all on the same waitqueue, and wake
> > them up via a single wake_up() call? That would remove the SMP
> > cross call (wakeups do immediate cross-calls already).
>
> My concern with this is that the cache misses accessing all the
> processes on this single waitqueue would be serialized, slowing
> things down. In contrast, the bitmask that smp_call_function()
> traverses delivers on the order of a thousand CPUs' worth of bits
> per cache miss. I will give it a try, though.
At least if you go via the migration threads, you can queue up
requests to them locally. But there's going to be cachemisses
_anyway_, since you have to access them all from a single CPU, and
then they have to fetch details about what to do, and then have to
notify the originator about completion.
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