lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/9] timer locking optimization
Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Still not correct, I beleive.
>
> Here is a new idea, what do you think about using spin_trylock(), e.g.
> something like:
>
> if (spin_trylock(&new_base->t_base.lock)) {
> timer->base = &new_base->t_base;
> spin_unlock(&base->lock);
> } else
> new_base = container_of(base, tvec_base_t, t_base);
>
> It's not like we must start the timer on the current cpu and this might
> even be faster. If the new base is busy on another cpu, it's possible we
> have to pull dirty cache lines from the other cpu, where we might already
> have the data from the current base already in the cache from the detach.

... and this will simplify the code! I think this is a nice idea.
Something like this:

if (base != &new_base->t_base) {

if (unlikely(base->running_timer == timer) ||
!spin_trylock(&new_base->t_base.lock)) {
/* The timer remains on a former base */
new_base = container_of(base, tvec_base_t, t_base);
} else {
timer->base = &new_base->t_base;
spin_unlock(&base->lock);
}
}

But please update comments too, and don't forget to cc Ingo and Andrew
at least. In my opinion this patch should go separately from other ptimer
patches.

Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-30 18:05    [W:0.034 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site