[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120131161207.GA18357@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:12:07 +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 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.
I didn't think I'd ever quote Bush, but my reaction to that is:
'Bring it on!' ;-)
Really, we don't want *more* random delays in kernel code.
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