Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:26:55 +0530 | From | "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 01/10] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs for "light" atomic readers to prevent CPU offline |
| |
Replaying what Oleg wrote:
(add lkml)
> Replaying what Tejun wrote:
> Replacing get_online_cpus() w/ percpu_rwsem is great but this thread > is about replacing preempt_disable with something finer grained and > less heavy on the writer side
If only I understood why preempt_disable() is bad ;-)
OK, I guess "less heavy on the writer side" is the hint, and in the previous email you mentioned that "stop_machine() itself is extremely heavy".
Looks like, you are going to remove stop_machine() from cpu_down ???
> The problem seems that we don't have percpu_rwlock yet. It shouldn't > be too difficult to implement, right? >
Oh, I am not sure... unless you simply copy-and-paste the lglock code and replace spinlock_t with rwlock_t.
We probably want something more efficient, but I bet we can't avoid the barriers on the read side.
And somehow we should avoid the livelocks. Say, we can't simply add the per_cpu_reader_counter, _read_lock should spin if the writer is active. But at the same time _read_lock should be recursive.
Tejun, could you please send me mbox with this thread offlist?
[That should now be unnecessary, since the discussion can continue on-list on this thread].
Oleg.
| |