[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120131143130.GF13676@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:31:31 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
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
* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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)
Still magic delays are not acceptable - we want to face any
remaining performance problems head on, we want to understand
and fix them correctly.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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