[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100110010451.GC25790@Krystal>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 20:04:51 -0500
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, josh@...htriplett.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
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 18:05 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > Then we should have O(tasks) for spinlocks taken, and
> > O(min(tasks, CPUS)) for IPIs.
> >
>
> And for nr tasks >> CPUS, this may help too:
>
> > cpumask = 0;
> > foreach task {
>
> if (cpumask == online_cpus)
> break;
This is not required with for_each_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(current->mm)),
because it only iterates on active cpus on which the current process
threads are scheduled.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> > spin_lock(task_rq(task)->rq->lock);
> > if (task_rq(task)->curr == task)
> > cpu_set(task_cpu(task), cpumask);
> > spin_unlock(task_rq(task)->rq->lock);
> > }
> > send_ipi(cpumask);
> >
>
> -- Steve
>
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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