[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53C85FCA.6080107@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:44:10 -0400
From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
CC: rdunlap@...radead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] doc: Add remote CPU access details and others
to this_cpu_ops.txt
On 07/17/2014 11:26 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>
>> I can mention that IPI is preferable. What is that you don't want mentioned? atomic_t?
>
> Definitely not as an example. atomic_t in per cpu areas is self
> contradicting. The per cpu area is exclusively for that processor whereas
> an atomic_t is supposed to be accessed from multiple processors.
>
>>> Remote percpu updates are extremely rare events. If the cpu is idle/asleep
>>> then usually no updates are needed because no activity is occurring on
>>> that cpu.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, -usually- that is the case. But we are talking about the extreme rare event
>> where we need to update some remote CPU`s per-cpu data without waking it up from
>> sleep/idle. How do you suggest we handle this? I don't think suggesting not to
>> use per-cpu areas because of this is a good idea, since we lose a lot of
>> performance in the most common cases.
>
> If you modify a percpu area then that is usually done because that cpu
> needs to take some action. An IPI is fine.
>
> Otherwise yes I would suggest not use a percpu area but a separate data
> structure for synchronization.
>
Yes, I will add this information to the doc. Thanks!
--
Pranith
--
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