[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170419132226.yvo3jyweb3d2a632@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:22:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/13] rcu: Make RCU_FANOUT_LEAF help text
more explicit about skew_tick
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:42:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> I believe that you are missing the fact that RCU grace-period
> initialization and cleanup walks through the rcu_node tree breadth
> first, using rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first().
Indeed. That is the part I completely missed.
> This macro (shown below)
> implements this breadth-first walk using a simple sequential traversal of
> the ->node[] array that provides the structures making up the rcu_node
> tree. As you can see, this scan is completely independent of how CPU
> numbers might be mapped to rcu_data slots in the leaf rcu_node structures.
So this code is clearly not a hotpath, but still its performance
matters?
Seems like you cannot win here :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists