lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/1] doc: Add remote CPU access details and others to this_cpu_ops.txt
On 07/17/2014 11:26 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>
>> I can mention that IPI is preferable. What is that you don't want mentioned? atomic_t?
>
> Definitely not as an example. atomic_t in per cpu areas is self
> contradicting. The per cpu area is exclusively for that processor whereas
> an atomic_t is supposed to be accessed from multiple processors.
>
>>> Remote percpu updates are extremely rare events. If the cpu is idle/asleep
>>> then usually no updates are needed because no activity is occurring on
>>> that cpu.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, -usually- that is the case. But we are talking about the extreme rare event
>> where we need to update some remote CPU`s per-cpu data without waking it up from
>> sleep/idle. How do you suggest we handle this? I don't think suggesting not to
>> use per-cpu areas because of this is a good idea, since we lose a lot of
>> performance in the most common cases.
>
> If you modify a percpu area then that is usually done because that cpu
> needs to take some action. An IPI is fine.
>
> Otherwise yes I would suggest not use a percpu area but a separate data
> structure for synchronization.
>

Yes, I will add this information to the doc. Thanks!

--
Pranith


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-18 02:21    [W:0.050 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site