[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20131009224755.09d32206.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:47:55 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Paul 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>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:25:06 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> The current implementation of get_online_cpus() is global of nature
> and thus not suited for any kind of common usage.
>
> Re-implement the current recursive r/w cpu hotplug lock such that the
> read side locks are as light as possible.
>
> The current cpu hotplug lock is entirely reader biased; but since
> readers are expensive there aren't a lot of them about and writer
> starvation isn't a particular problem.
>
> However by making the reader side more usable there is a fair chance
> it will get used more and thus the starvation issue becomes a real
> possibility.
>
> Therefore this new implementation is fair, alternating readers and
> writers; this however requires per-task state to allow the reader
> recursion.
Obvious question: can't we adapt lglocks for this? It would need the
counter in task_struct to permit reader nesting, but what else is
needed?
--
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