[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1346939197.18408.10.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:46:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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,
sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/23] rcu: Provide OOM handler to motivate
lazy RCU callbacks
On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> + get_online_cpus();
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> + for_each_rcu_flavor(rsp)
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, rcu_oom_notify_cpu,
> + rsp, 1);
> + put_online_cpus();
I guess blasting IPIs around is better than OOM but still.. do you
really need to wait for each cpu individually, or would a construct
using on_each_cpu() be possible, or better yet, on_each_cpu_cond()?
--
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