[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711172118270.2186@nanos>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 21:22:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 for 4.15 08/24] Provide cpu_opv system call
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Nov 17, 2017, at 5:09 AM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@...utronix.de wrote:
> 7) Allow libraries with multi-part algorithms to work on same per-cpu
> data without affecting the allowed cpu mask
>
> I stumbled on an interesting use-case within the lttng-ust tracer
> per-cpu buffers: the algorithm needs to update a "reserve" counter,
> serialize data into the buffer, and then update a "commit" counter
> _on the same per-cpu buffer_. My goal is to use rseq for both reserve
> and commit.
>
> Clearly, if rseq reserve fails, the algorithm can retry on a different
> per-cpu buffer. However, it's not that easy for the commit. It needs to
> be performed on the same per-cpu buffer as the reserve.
>
> The cpu_opv system call solves that problem by receiving the cpu number
> on which the operation needs to be performed as argument. It can push
> the task to the right CPU if needed, and perform the operations there
> with preemption disabled.
If your transaction cannot be done in one go, then abusing that byte code
interpreter for concluding it is just hillarious. That whole exercise is a
gazillion times slower than the atomic operations which are neccesary to do
it without all that.
I'm even more convinced now that this is overengineered beyond repair.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists