lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 18 May 2009 09:02:54 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <>
To:	Ingo Molnar <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] v5 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 05:42:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney <> wrote:
> > > i might be missing something fundamental here, but why not just 
> > > have per CPU helper threads, all on the same waitqueue, and wake 
> > > them up via a single wake_up() call? That would remove the SMP 
> > > cross call (wakeups do immediate cross-calls already).
> > 
> > My concern with this is that the cache misses accessing all the 
> > processes on this single waitqueue would be serialized, slowing 
> > things down. In contrast, the bitmask that smp_call_function() 
> > traverses delivers on the order of a thousand CPUs' worth of bits 
> > per cache miss.  I will give it a try, though.
> At least if you go via the migration threads, you can queue up 
> requests to them locally. But there's going to be cachemisses 
> _anyway_, since you have to access them all from a single CPU, and 
> then they have to fetch details about what to do, and then have to 
> notify the originator about completion.

Ah, so you are suggesting that I use smp_call_function() to run code on
each CPU that wakes up that CPU's migration thread?  I will take a look
at this.

							Thanx, Paul
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists