lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU offline from atomic context
On 12/11/2012 07:17 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Srivatsa.
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 06:43:54PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> This approach (of using synchronize_sched()) also looks good. It is simple,
>> yet effective, but unfortunately inefficient at the writer side (because
>> he'll have to wait for a full synchronize_sched()).
>
> While synchornize_sched() is heavier on the writer side than the
> originally posted version, it doesn't stall the whole machine and
> wouldn't introduce latencies to others. Shouldn't that be enough?
>

Short answer: Yes. But we can do better, with almost comparable code
complexity. So I'm tempted to try that out.

Long answer:
Even in the synchronize_sched() approach, we still have to identify the
readers who need to be converted to use the new get/put_online_cpus_atomic()
APIs and convert them. Then, if we can come up with a scheme such that
the writer has to wait only for those readers to complete, then why not?

If such a scheme ends up becoming too complicated, then I agree, we
can use synchronize_sched() itself. (That's what I meant by saying that
we'll use this as a fallback).

But even in this scheme which uses synchronize_sched(), we are
already half-way through (we already use 2 types of sync schemes -
counters and rwlocks). Just a little more logic can get rid of the
unnecessary full-wait too.. So why not give it a shot?

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-11 15:21    [W:2.091 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site