[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1288769123.2467.681.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 08:25:23 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4]x86: avoid tlbstate lock if no enough cpus
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 15:19 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit :
> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 15:12 +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 15:06 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit :
> > > just don't want to include the non-present cpus here. I wonder why we
> > > haven't a variable to record online cpu number.
> >
> > What prevents a 256 cpus machine, to have 8 online cpus that all use the
> > same TLB vector ?
> >
> > (Max 32 vectors, so 8 cpus share each vector, settled at boot time)
> >
> > Forget about 'online', and think 'possible' ;)
> Hmm, the spread vectors to node already merged, how could the 8 cpus
> share a vector?
>
You boot a machine with 256 cpu.
They are online and very well.
Each vector is shared by at least 8 cpus, because 256/32 = 8. OK ?
Now you off-line 256-8 cpus, because you have HOTPLUG capability in your
kernel and you have some policy to bring them up later if needed.
What happens ? Do you rebalance TLB vectors to make sure each cpu has
its own vector ?
--
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