[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131001153451.GB3515@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 17:34:52 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()
On 10/01, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 04:48:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:45:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > If you don't have cpuhp_seq, you need some other way to avoid
> > > counter overflow. Which might be provided by limited number of
> > > tasks, or, on 64-bit systems, 64-bit counters.
> >
> > How so? PID space is basically limited to 30 bits, so how could we
> > overflow a 32bit reference counter?
>
> Nesting.
Still it seems that UINT_MAX / PID_MAX_LIMIT has enough room.
But again, OK lets make it ulong. The question is, how cpuhp_seq can
help and why we can't kill it.
Oleg.
--
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