[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130821123311.GA31370@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:33:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
<fernando_b1@....ntt.co.jp>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] nohz: Synchronize sleep time stats with seqlock
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:35:51PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Yes its the right rq, but the wrong time.
>
> Hmm. Just in case, it is not that I think this patch really makes sense,
> but I'd like to understand why do you think it is wrong.
> But it is not "after it switches out", it is after it switched back.
D'uh I was being particularly dense it seems :/
Yes I think it is correct. You're now trading two atomic ops on a
different cacheline than rq->lock for one atomic op on the rq->lock.
Might be a win, esp. since hopefully there's a fair chance its the same
runqueue.
--
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