[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150624152705.GE3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:27:19 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, tj@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, der.herr@...r.at, dave@...olabs.net,
riel@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/13] stop_machine: Remove lglock
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 05:01:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 07:50:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 09:35:03AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > I still don't see a problem here though; the stop_one_cpu() invocation
> > > for the CPU that's suffering its preemption latency will take longer,
> > > but so what?
> > >
> > > How does polling and dropping back to sync_rcu() generate better
> > > behaviour than simply waiting for the completion?
> >
> > Because if there is too much delay, synchronize_rcu() is no slower
> > than is synchronize_rcu_expedited(), plus synchronize_rcu() is much
> > more efficient.
>
> Still confused.. How is polling and then blocking more efficient than
> just blocking in the first place? I'm seeing the polling as a waste of
> cpu time.
As I said, the current code is quite old and will get a facelift.
> The thing is, if we're stalled on a stop_one_cpu() call, the sync_rcu()
> is equally stalled. The sync_rcu() cannot wait more efficient than we're
> already waiting either.
Ah, but synchronize_rcu() doesn't force waiting on more than one extra
grace period. With strictly queued mutex, you can end up waiting on
several.
Thanx, Paul
--
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