[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51CB3159.8000509@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:52:17 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.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
On 06/26/2013 08:51 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:51:11AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> It would also increase the latency of CPU-hotunplug operations.
>>
>> Is that a big deal?
>
> I thought that was the whole deal with this patchset - making cpu
> hotunplugs lighter and faster mostly for powersaving. That said, just
> removing stop_machine call would be a pretty good deal and I don't
> know how meaningful reducing CPU hotunplug latency is. Srivatsa?
>
Keeping the hotunplug latency is important for suspend/resume, where
we take all non-boot CPUs in a loop. That's an interesting use-case
where intrusiveness doesn't matter much, but latency does. So yes,
making CPU hotplug faster is also one of the goals of this patchset.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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