[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120131054155.371e8307@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 05:41:55 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
arjanvandeven@...il.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchronously
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:52:32 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> The real fix would be to make the init code depend less on each
> other, i.e. have less hotplug lock dependencies. Or, if it's
> such a hot lock for a good reason, why does spinning on it slow
> down the boot process? It really shouldnt.
by inspection, anything that calls get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus()
will block while a CPU is coming up. This is used in things like
kmem_cache_create()... which is used about everywhere.
(there's various other places... more or less it's a requirement
for using the for_each_online_cpu() api correctly)
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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