[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130626172948.GD4405@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:29:48 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
peterz@...radead.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, walken@...gle.com, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, namhyung@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com, sbw@....edu,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/45] rcu: Use get/put_online_cpus_atomic() to
prevent CPU offline
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:33:43AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I thought the whole deal with this patchset was to remove stop_machine
> from CPU hotplug. Why halt all CPUs just to remove one? stomp_machine()
> is extremely intrusive for the entire system, where as one CPU making
> sure all CPUs schedule isn't very intrusive at all.
>
> I didn't think the idea of this patch set was to make CPU hotplug
> faster, just less intrusive to the system.
Yeap, removal of stop_machine is a great improvement in itself. ISTR
mentions of hot-unplug latency but I could be mistaken. Srivatsa, can
you please chime in on that?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists