On 12/12/2012 11:32 PM, 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 ;)
OK :-)
>
>>> Do we really need local_irq_save/restore in put_ ?
>>>
>>
>> Hmm.. good point! I don't think we need it.
>
> And _perhaps_ get_ can avoid it too?
>
> I didn't really try to think, probably this is not right, but can't
> something like this work?
>
> #define XXXX (1 << 16)
> #define MASK (XXXX -1)
>
> void get_online_cpus_atomic(void)
> {
> preempt_disable();
>
> // only for writer
> __this_cpu_add(reader_percpu_refcnt, XXXX);
>
> if (__this_cpu_read(reader_percpu_refcnt) & MASK) {
> __this_cpu_inc(reader_percpu_refcnt);
> } else {
> smp_wmb();
> if (writer_active()) {
> ...
> }
> }
>
> __this_cpu_dec(reader_percpu_refcnt, XXXX);
> }
>
Sorry, may be I'm too blind to see, but I didn't understand the logic
of how the mask helps us avoid disabling interrupts.. Can you kindly
elaborate?
> void put_online_cpus_atomic(void)
> {
> if (__this_cpu_read(reader_percpu_refcnt) & MASK)
> __this_cpu_dec(reader_percpu_refcnt);
> else
> read_unlock(&hotplug_rwlock);
> preempt_enable();
> }
>
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
