>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:40 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 11:33 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: >> >> If there was anything more than what you already mention here, please >> point them out so I don't "port" them over to the workqueues >> implemenation ;) > > The two that jumped out at me while skimming over the code were: > > - use of raw_spinlock_t (while not always a bug, it does need _very_ > good justification)
Ah, yes. This was done on purpose based on the design parameters. I needed the calls to work from atomic context (which smp_call_function() often is called under). However, note that I am sensitive to the impact this decision causes and you will see that the lock scopes are all very tight and light (at least, IMHO). > - not cpu hotplug safe Yeah, agreed. I was aware of this potential race against the "for_each_online_cpu()". However, I am not knowledgeable enough (yet) to have even attempted a cursory stab at how to support the notification mechanism, so I just left the gaping hole. It will definitely need to be addressed before any serious merge consideration for whatever final form this thing takes. I should have commented that. > > The thing is, we should never need to allocate from a real atomic > context I agree with you on principle. Making unnecessary external calls within a lock scope should always be avoided when possible. However, in this case I had the following design parameters: 1) "heap" allocations over something like static/stack allocations allowed a higher degree of parallelization while supporting asynchronous calls, which was an existing feature of smp_call(). 2) The context in which the function could be invoked is beyond my control, and is often atomic. > every time you end up in that situation, ask yourself if the > problem can be solved differently. Ah, but it was. I wrote my own cheeseball heap manager ;) And it was nicely abstracted and conditionally compiled in case GFP_ATOMIC (or equivalent) ever popped up on the radar. The fact is, when deciding between finer grained parallelism and managing a simple heap myself....the heap code really isn't rocket science ;) Out of curiosity and for my own edification: What *is* GFP_ATOMIC meant for? Regards, -Greg - 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/
