lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues rather than rcu
Hi Ingo,

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>
>> RCU can only control the lifetime of allocated memory blocks, which
>> forces all the call structures to be allocated. This is expensive
>> compared to allocating them on the stack, which is the common case for
>> synchronous calls.
>>
>> This patch takes a different approach. Rather than using RCU, the
>> queues are managed under rwlocks. Adding or removing from the queue
>> requires holding the lock for writing, but multiple CPUs can walk the
>> queues to process function calls under read locks. In the common
>> case, where the structures are stack allocated, the calling CPU need
>> only wait for its call to be done, take the lock for writing and
>> remove the call structure.
>>
>> Lock contention - particularly write vs read - is reduced by using
>> multiple queues.
>
> hm, is there any authorative data on what is cheaper on a big box, a
> full-blown MESI cache miss that occurs for every reader in this new
> fastpath, or a local SLAB/SLUB allocation+free that occurs with the
> current RCU approach?

Christoph might have an idea about it.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-22 09:09    [W:1.378 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site