[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131002151734.GT3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:17:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
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>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:00:20PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> And again, even
>
> for (;;) {
> percpu_down_write();
> percpu_up_write();
> }
>
> should not completely block the readers.
Sure there's a tiny window, but don't forget that a reader will have to
wait for the gp_state cacheline to transfer to shared state and the
per-cpu refcount cachelines to be brought back into exclusive mode and
the above can be aggressive enough that by that time we'll observe
state == blocked again.
So I don't think that in practise a reader will get in.
Also, since the write side is exposed to userspace; you've got an
effective DoS.
So I'll stick to waitcount -- as you can see in the patches I've just
posted.
--
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