[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1264585850.4283.1992.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:50:50 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] accelerate grace period if last
non-dynticked CPU
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 10:43 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Can't you simply check that at runtime then?
>
> if (num_possible_cpus() > 20)
> ...
>
> BTW the new small is large. This years high end desktop PC will come with
> upto 12 CPU threads. It would likely be challenging to find a good
> number for 20 that holds up with the future.
If only scalability were that easy :/
These massive core/thread count things are causing more problems as
well, the cpus/node ratios are constantly growing, giving grief in the
page allocator as well as other places that used to scale per node.
As to the current problem, the call_rcu() interface doesn't make a hard
promise that the callback will be done on the same cpu, right? So why
not simply move the callback list over to a more active cpu?
--
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