[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1262853855.4049.86.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:44:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
barrier
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 22:35 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> The number of threads doesn't matter nearly as much as the number of
> threads typically running at a time compared to the number of
> processors. Of course, we can't measure that as easily, but I don't
> know that your proposed heuristic would approximate it well.
Quite agreed, and not disturbing RT tasks is even more important.
A simple:
for_each_cpu(cpu, current->mm->cpu_vm_mask) {
if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm == current->mm)
smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, NULL, 1);
}
seems far preferable over anything else, if you really want you can use
a cpumask to copy cpu_vm_mask in and unset bits and use the mask with
smp_call_function_any(), but that includes having to allocate the
cpumask, which might or might not be too expensive for Mathieu.
--
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