lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] RCU changes for v3.4
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:39:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Please? Every time I look at some profiles, that silly rcu_read_lock
> >> is there in the profile. It's annoying. I'd rather see it in the
> >> function that invokes it.
> >
> > Let me see what I can do...
>
> Thanks. To some degree, rcu_read_lock() is the more critical one,
> because it is often in the much more critical path in the caller. In
> particular, it's often at the beginning of a function, where a number
> of arguments are "live", and calling it out-of-line also forces the
> compiler to then save/restore those arguments (because they are
> clobbered by the function call).
>
> rcu_read_unlock() is *usually* not as critical, and is obviously much
> harder to inline anyway due to the whole complexity with needing to
> check if an RCU sequence has ended. It often is at the end of the
> function call in the caller, when the only thing like is often just
> the single return value (if that). So it seldom looks nearly as bad in
> any profiles, because it doesn't tend to have the same kind of bad
> impact on the call site.

Very good to hear! Especially since I am not seeing how to move
->rcu_read_unlock_special to a per-CPU variable given that rcu_boost()
needs cross-task access to it. There is probably some obvious trick,
but I will start with just __rcu_read_lock() for now.

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-23 22:19    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans