lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC 4/4]x86: avoid tlbstate lock if no enough cpus
From
Date
Le jeudi 04 novembre 2010 à 13:21 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit :
> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 17:08 +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 16:41 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit :
> >
> > > yes, this is ok. we might need avoid some cpu hotplug race too. I'll
> > > post a new patch later.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, maybe only set the variable "must take the lock", never unset it.
> I followed your suggestions to use nr_cpu_ids, it should be good enough.
>

Yes, unfortunately not on HP machines, because of their tendency to have
holes in CPU numberings :)

This can probably can improved later.

Thanks

> Thanks,
> Shaohua
>
>
> This one isn't related to previous patch. If online cpus are below
> NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS, we don't need the lock. The comments
> in the code declares we don't need the check, but a hot lock still
> needs an atomic operation and expensive, so add the check here.
>
> Uses nr_cpu_ids here as suggested by Eric Dumazet.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
> ---

Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>



--
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: 2010-11-04 06:45    [W:0.078 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site