[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120131072216.1ce78e50@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:22:16 -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 15:31:31 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
it's not really a performance problem as it is an obvious "we have a
ton of back-to-back writers on a read-write lock that we have quite a
few readers for". Unless the writers back off a little, the readers are
going to get starved.
--
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