On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:06:24 -0700
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 12 May 2007 20:55:28 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 11 May 2007 10:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, 11 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > yipes.  percpu_counter_sum() is expensive.
> > > > 
> > > > Capable of triggering NMI watchdog on 4096+ processors?
> > > 
> > > Well.  That would be a millisecond per cpu which sounds improbable.  And
> > > we'd need to be calling it under local_irq_save() which we presently 
> > > don't.
> > > And nobody has reported any problems against the existing callsites.
> > > 
> > > But it's no speed demon, that's for sure.
> > 
> > There is one possible optimization for this I did some time ago. You don't 
> > really
> > need to sum all over the possible map, but only all CPUs that were ever 
> > online. But this only helps on systems where the possible map is bigger
> > than online map in the common case. But that shouldn't be the case anymore 
> > on x86
> > -- it just used to be. If it's true on some other architectures it might
> > be still worth it.
> > 
> 
> hm, yeah.
> 
> We could put a cpumask in percpu_counter, initialise it to
> cpu_possible_map.  Then, those callsites which have hotplug notifiers can
> call into new percpu_counter functions which clear and set bits in that
> cpumask and which drain percpu_counter.counts[cpu] into
> percpu_counter.count.
> 
> And percpu_counter_sum() gets taught to do for_each_cpu_mask(fbc->cpumask).

Like this:


From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

per-cpu counters presently must iterate over all possible CPUs in the
exhaustive percpu_counter_sum().

But it can be much better to only iterate over the presently-online CPUs.  To
do this, we must arrange for an offlined CPU's count to be spilled into the
counter's central count.

We can do this for all percpu_counters in the machine by linking them into a
single global list and walking that list at CPU_DEAD time.

(I hope.  Might have race windows in which the percpu_counter_sum() count is
inaccurate?)


Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---

 include/linux/percpu_counter.h |   18 ++------
 lib/percpu_counter.c           |   66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff -puN lib/percpu_counter.c~percpu_counters-use-cpu-notifiers 
lib/percpu_counter.c
--- a/lib/percpu_counter.c~percpu_counters-use-cpu-notifiers
+++ a/lib/percpu_counter.c
@@ -3,8 +3,17 @@
  */
 
 #include <linux/percpu_counter.h>
+#include <linux/notifier.h>
+#include <linux/mutex.h>
+#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/cpu.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
+static LIST_HEAD(percpu_counters);
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(percpu_counters_lock);
+#endif
+
 void percpu_counter_mod(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s32 amount)
 {
        long count;
@@ -44,3 +53,60 @@ s64 percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_cou
        return ret < 0 ? 0 : ret;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(percpu_counter_sum);
+
+void percpu_counter_init(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount)
+{
+       spin_lock_init(&fbc->lock);
+       fbc->count = amount;
+       fbc->counters = alloc_percpu(s32);
+#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
+       mutex_lock(&percpu_counters_lock);
+       list_add(&fbc->list, &percpu_counters);
+       mutex_unlock(&percpu_counters_lock);
+#endif
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(percpu_counter_init);
+
+void percpu_counter_destroy(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
+{
+       free_percpu(fbc->counters);
+#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
+       mutex_lock(&percpu_counters_lock);
+       list_del(&fbc->list);
+       mutex_unlock(&percpu_counters_lock);
+#endif
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(percpu_counter_destroy);
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
+static int __cpuinit percpu_counter_hotcpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
+                                       unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
+{
+       unsigned int cpu;
+       struct percpu_counter *fbc;
+
+       if (action != CPU_DEAD)
+               return NOTIFY_OK;
+
+       cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
+       mutex_lock(&percpu_counters_lock);
+       list_for_each_entry(fbc, &percpu_counters, list) {
+               s32 *pcount;
+
+               spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
+               pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
+               fbc->count += *pcount;
+               *pcount = 0;
+               spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
+       }
+       mutex_unlock(&percpu_counters_lock);
+       return NOTIFY_OK;
+}
+
+static int __init percpu_counter_startup(void)
+{
+       hotcpu_notifier(percpu_counter_hotcpu_callback, 0);
+       return 0;
+}
+module_init(percpu_counter_startup);
+#endif
diff -puN include/linux/percpu.h~percpu_counters-use-cpu-notifiers 
include/linux/percpu.h
diff -puN include/linux/percpu_counter.h~percpu_counters-use-cpu-notifiers 
include/linux/percpu_counter.h
--- a/include/linux/percpu_counter.h~percpu_counters-use-cpu-notifiers
+++ a/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
 #include <linux/smp.h>
+#include <linux/list.h>
 #include <linux/threads.h>
 #include <linux/percpu.h>
 #include <linux/types.h>
@@ -17,6 +18,9 @@
 struct percpu_counter {
        spinlock_t lock;
        s64 count;
+#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
+       struct list_head list;  /* All percpu_counters are on a list */
+#endif
        s32 *counters;
 };
 
@@ -26,18 +30,8 @@ struct percpu_counter {
 #define FBC_BATCH      (NR_CPUS*4)
 #endif
 
-static inline void percpu_counter_init(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount)
-{
-       spin_lock_init(&fbc->lock);
-       fbc->count = amount;
-       fbc->counters = alloc_percpu(s32);
-}
-
-static inline void percpu_counter_destroy(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
-{
-       free_percpu(fbc->counters);
-}
-
+void percpu_counter_init(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount);
+void percpu_counter_destroy(struct percpu_counter *fbc);
 void percpu_counter_mod(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s32 amount);
 s64 percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc);
 
_

and then this:


From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Now that we have implemented hotunplug-time counter spilling,
percpu_counter_sum() only needs to look at online CPus.


Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---

 lib/percpu_counter.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff -puN lib/percpu_counter.c~percpu_counters-use-for_each_online_cpu 
lib/percpu_counter.c
--- a/lib/percpu_counter.c~percpu_counters-use-for_each_online_cpu
+++ a/lib/percpu_counter.c
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ s64 percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_cou
 
        spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
        ret = fbc->count;
-       for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+       for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
                s32 *pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
                ret += *pcount;
        }
_

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to