[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170704154208.GC11168@linux-80c1.suse>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 08:42:08 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 2/2] mm/memory-hotplug: Switch locking to a percpu
rwsem
On Tue, 04 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Jul 2017, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>
>> > As a side effect you end up optimizing get/put_online_mems() at the cost
>> > of more overhead for the actual hotplug operation, which is rare and of less
>> > performance importance.
>>
>> So nm this, the reader side actually gets _more_ expensive with pcpu-rwsems
>> due to at least two full barriers for each get/put operation.
>
>Compared to a mutex_lock/unlock() pair on a global mutex ....
Ah, right, I was thrown off the:
if (mem_hotplug.active_writer == current)
return;
checks, which is only true within hotplug_begin/end. So normally we'd take
the lock, which was my first impression. Sorry for the noise.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists