[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:00:42 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, tj@...nel.org, sbw@....edu,
amit.kucheria@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, rjw@...k.pl,
wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU offline
from atomic context
On 12/12/2012 11:32 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/12, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/2012 10:47 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>
>>> Why it needs to be per-cpu? It can be global and __read_mostly to avoid
>>> the false-sharing. OK, perhaps to put reader_percpu_refcnt/writer_signal
>>> into a single cacheline...
>>
>> Even I realized this (that we could use a global) after posting out the
>> series.. But do you think that it would be better to retain the per-cpu
>> variant itself, due to the cache effects?
>
> I don't really know, up to you. This was the question ;)
OK :-)
>
>>> Do we really need local_irq_save/restore in put_ ?
>>>
>>
>> Hmm.. good point! I don't think we need it.
>
> And _perhaps_ get_ can avoid it too?
>
> I didn't really try to think, probably this is not right, but can't
> something like this work?
>
> #define XXXX (1 << 16)
> #define MASK (XXXX -1)
>
> void get_online_cpus_atomic(void)
> {
> preempt_disable();
>
> // only for writer
> __this_cpu_add(reader_percpu_refcnt, XXXX);
>
> if (__this_cpu_read(reader_percpu_refcnt) & MASK) {
> __this_cpu_inc(reader_percpu_refcnt);
> } else {
> smp_wmb();
> if (writer_active()) {
> ...
> }
> }
>
> __this_cpu_dec(reader_percpu_refcnt, XXXX);
> }
>
Sorry, may be I'm too blind to see, but I didn't understand the logic
of how the mask helps us avoid disabling interrupts.. Can you kindly
elaborate?
> void put_online_cpus_atomic(void)
> {
> if (__this_cpu_read(reader_percpu_refcnt) & MASK)
> __this_cpu_dec(reader_percpu_refcnt);
> else
> read_unlock(&hotplug_rwlock);
> preempt_enable();
> }
>
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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