[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:26:12 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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>,
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 0/6] Optimize the cpu hotplug locking -v2
On 10/10, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > But the thing is; our sense of NR_CPUS has shifted, where it used to be
> > ok to do something like:
> >
> > for_each_cpu()
> >
> > With preemption disabled; it gets to be less and less sane to do so,
> > simply because 'common' hardware has 256+ CPUs these days. If we cannot
> > rely on preempt disable to exclude hotplug, we must use
> > get_online_cpus(), but get_online_cpus() is global state and thus cannot
> > be used at any sort of frequency.
>
> So ... why not make it _really_ cheap, i.e. the read lock costing nothing,
> and tie CPU hotplug to freezing all tasks in the system?
>
> Actual CPU hot unplugging and repluggin is _ridiculously_ rare in a
> system, I don't understand how we tolerate _any_ overhead from this utter
> slowpath.
Well, iirc Srivatsa (cc'ed) pointed out that some systems do cpu_down/up
quite often to save the power.
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