[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v4 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU offline from atomic context
On 12/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/12, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >
> > On 12/12/2012 10:47 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Why it needs to be per-cpu? It can be global and __read_mostly to avoid
> > > the false-sharing. OK, perhaps to put reader_percpu_refcnt/writer_signal
> > > into a single cacheline...
> >
> > Even I realized this (that we could use a global) after posting out the
> > series.. But do you think that it would be better to retain the per-cpu
> > variant itself, due to the cache effects?
> I don't really know, up to you. This was the question ;)

But perhaps there is another reason to make it per-cpu...

It seems we can avoid cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current check in

take_cpu_down() can clear this_cpu(writer_signal) right after it takes
hotplug_rwlock for writing. It runs with irqs and preemption disabled,
nobody else will ever look at writer_signal on its CPU.


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-12 21:01    [W:0.118 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site