[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130626152148.GA4405@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:21:48 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
peterz@...radead.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, walken@...gle.com, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, namhyung@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com, sbw@....edu,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/45] rcu: Use get/put_online_cpus_atomic() to
prevent CPU offline
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:51:11AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > It would also increase the latency of CPU-hotunplug operations.
>
> Is that a big deal?
I thought that was the whole deal with this patchset - making cpu
hotunplugs lighter and faster mostly for powersaving. That said, just
removing stop_machine call would be a pretty good deal and I don't
know how meaningful reducing CPU hotunplug latency is. Srivatsa?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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