[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140311155915.GB25564@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:59:15 +0100
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] percpu_ida: Fix data race on cpus_have_tags
cpumask
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:34:21PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> In theory, it still might cause percpu_ida_alloc(TASK_RUNNING) failed,
> >> looks it isn't a big deal for the case.
> >>
> >> But I am wondering why cpumask_set_cpu() isn't called with
> >> holding lock inside percpu_ida_free()? Looks 'nr_free == 1'
> >> shouldn't have happened frequently.
> >
> > Because bouncing on the lock is more expensive than occasionally putting
> > a thread into sleep.
>
> I mean the below block can be put inside the previous lock:
>
> if (nr_free == 1)
> cpumask_set_cpu()
>
> As I mentioned, 'nr_free == 1' doesn't happen frequently, so
> it won't be big deal, will it?
No. The lock will be taken *each* time in your suggestion, which is bad.
--
Regards,
Alexander Gordeev
agordeev@...hat.com
--
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