lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.16-rc6-mm2
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:08:40 +1000
Keith Owens <kaos@sgi.com> wrote:

> Andi Kleen (on Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:56:45 +0200) wrote:
> >
> >> I have previously suggested a lightweight solution that pins a process
> >> to a cpu
> >
> >That is preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() effectively
> >It's also light weight as much as these things can be.
>
> The difference being that preempt_disable() does not allow the code to
> sleep. There are some places where we want to use cpu local data and
> the code can tolerate preemption and even sleeping, as long as the
> process schedules back on the same cpu.

It would be easy to use this mechanism wrongly:

thread 1 on CPU N thread 2 on CPU N

foo = per_cpu(...)
<preempt>
foo = per_cpu(...);
foo++;
per_cpu(...) = foo;
<unpreempt>
foo++;
per_cpu(...) = foo; // whoops


In which scenarios did you envisage it being used?
-
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: 2006-06-13 13:48    [W:0.069 / U:1.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site