[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] percpu: add data dependency barrier in percpu accessors and operations
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 03:42:07PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > In that case special care needs to be taken to get this right. True.
> >
> > I typically avoid these scenarios by sending an IPI with a pointer to the
> > data structure. The modification is done by the cpu for which the per cpu
> > data is local.
> >
> > Maybe rewrite the code to avoid writing to other processors percpu data
> > would be the right approach?
> It depends on the specific use case but in general no. IPIs would be
> far more expensive than making use of proper barriers in vast majority
> of cases especially when the "hot" side is data dependency barrier,
> IOW, nothing. Also, we are talking about extremely low frequency
> events like init and recycling after reinit. Regular per-cpu
> operation isn't really the subject here.

The aim of having percpu data is to have the ability for a processor to
access memory dedicated to that processor in the fastest way possible by
avoiding synchronization. You are beginning to add synchronization
elements into the accesses of a processor to memory dedicated to its sole

Remote write events are contrary to that design and are exceedingly rare.
An IPI is justifiable for such a rare event. At least in my use cases I
have always found that to be sufficient. Well, I designed the data
structures in a way that made this possible because of the design criteria
that did not allow me remote write access to other processors per cpu

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-20 02:41    [W:0.088 / U:3.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site