[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170727125659.GO3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 05:56:59 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/5] sys_membarrier: Add expedited option
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:14:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:36:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > This horse is already out, so trying to shut the gate won't be effective.
>
> So I'm not convinced it is. The mprotect() hack isn't portable as we've
> established and on x86 where it does work, it doesn't (much) perturb
> tasks not related to our process because we keep a tight mm_cpumask().
Wrong. People are using it today, portable or not. If we want them
to stop using it, we need to give them an alternative. Period.
> And if there are other (unpriv.) means of spraying IPIs around, we
> should most certainly look at fixing those, not just shrug and make
> matters worse.
We need to keep an open mind for a bit. If there was a trivial
solution, we would have implemented it back in 2010.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists