On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:51:13AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > You would prefer that I instead allocated an NR_CPUS-sized array?
>
> Well, a shared data structure would be cleaner in general but there are
> certainly other approaches.
Per-CPU variables -are- a shared data structure.
> But lets focus on the dynticks_idle case we are discussing here rather
> than tackle the more difficult other atomics. What is checked in the loop
> over the remote cpus is the dynticks_idle value plus
> dynticks_idle_jiffies. So it seems that memory ordering is only used to
> ensure that the jiffies are seen correctly.
>
> In that case both the dynticks_idle and dynticks_idle_jiffies could be
> placed in one 64 bit value. If this is stored and retrieved as one then
> there is no issue with ordering anymore and the barriers would no longer
> be needed.
If there was an upper bound on the propagation of values through a system,
I could buy this.
But Mike Galbraith checked the overhead of ->dynticks_idle and found
it to be too small to measure. So doesn't seem to be a problem worth
extraordinary efforts, especially given that many systems can avoid
it simply by leaving CONFIG_NO_HZ_SYSIDLE=n.
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
