[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120426155450.GD2407@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:54:50 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
patches@...aro.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 4/4] rcu: Ensure that RCU_FAST_NO_HZ
timers expire on correct CPU
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 03:04:56PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 09:16 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > - mod_timer(&per_cpu(rcu_idle_gp_timer, cpu),
> > - per_cpu(rcu_idle_gp_timer_expires, cpu));
> > + tp = &per_cpu(rcu_idle_gp_timer, cpu);
> > + tp->expires = per_cpu(rcu_idle_gp_timer_expires, cpu);
> > + add_timer_on(tp, cpu);
>
> The simpler change looks to use mod_timer_pinned()
Good point!
Except... Now that you mention it, I don't see how mod_timer_pinned()
actually helps. It looks to me like a CPU-hotplug operation will
migrate the timers anyway.
This is actually (in theory) harmless in the RCU_FAST_NO_HZ case, because
the CPU_DYING stuff will force a wakeup of the CPU in question, which
will cancel the timer. But still, mod_timer_pinned() has a rather
misleading name. ;-)
But a line is a line, so I made this change.
Thanx, Paul
--
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