[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1288849366.2718.42.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 06:42:46 +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 jeudi 04 novembre 2010 à 13:21 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit :
> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 17:08 +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 16:41 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit :
> >
> > > yes, this is ok. we might need avoid some cpu hotplug race too. I'll
> > > post a new patch later.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, maybe only set the variable "must take the lock", never unset it.
> I followed your suggestions to use nr_cpu_ids, it should be good enough.
>
Yes, unfortunately not on HP machines, because of their tendency to have
holes in CPU numberings :)
This can probably can improved later.
Thanks
> Thanks,
> Shaohua
>
>
> This one isn't related to previous patch. If online cpus are below
> NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS, we don't need the lock. The comments
> in the code declares we don't need the check, but a hot lock still
> needs an atomic operation and expensive, so add the check here.
>
> Uses nr_cpu_ids here as suggested by Eric Dumazet.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
> ---
Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
--
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