On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> -this_cpu ops are interrupt safe. Some architecture do not support
> +this_cpu ops are interrupt safe. Some architectures do not support
> these per cpu local operations. In that case the operation must be
> replaced by code that disables interrupts, then does the operations
> that are guaranteed to be atomic and then reenable interrupts. Doing
> so is expensive. If there are other reasons why the scheduler cannot
> change the processor we are executing on then there is no reason to
> -disable interrupts. For that purpose the __this_cpu operations are
> -provided. For example.
> +disable interrupts. For that purpose the following __this_cpu operations
> +are provided.
> +
> +These operations have no guarantee against concurrent interrupts or
> +preemption. If a per cpu variable is not used in an interrupt context
> +and the scheduler cannot preempt then they are safe.
> +
> +Note that interrupts may still occur while an operation is
> +in progress and if the interrupt too modifies the variable, then RMW
> +actions may not be atomic.
This paragraph is restating what the one before already said. Make these
two one paragraph and condense a bit?
> +Remote access to per cpu data
> +------------------------------
> +
> +Per cpu data structures are designed to be used by one cpu exclusively.
> +If you use the variables as intended, this_cpu_ops() are guaranteed to
> +be "atomic" as no other CPU has access to these data structures. In this
> +context, a remote access means an access to a per cpu data structure
> +from a CPU without using the this_cpu_* operations.
> +
> +There are special cases where you might need to access per cpu data
> +structures remotely. One such case is to perform maintenance tasks of
> +idle CPUs without having to wake them up using IPIs for power saving
> +purposes. It is usually safe to do a remote read access and that is
> +frequently done to summarize counters. Remote write access is the one
> +which is problematic. This is not recommended unless absolutely
> +necessary. Remote write accesses to per cpu data structures are highly
Two sentences making the same point.
> +discouraged. Please consider using an IPI to wake up the remote CPU and
> +perform the update to its per cpu area.
> +
> +
> + struct test {
> + atomic_t a;
> + int b;
> + };
> +
> + DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct test, onecacheline);
> +
> +You cannot update the field 'a' remotely from one processor and expect
> +this_cpu ops to work on the field b from the local CPU with atomic
> +semantics. Care should be taken that such simultaneous access to data
> +within the same cache line is avoided. Also costly synchronization is
> +necessary when you are unsure of such cases. IPI is generally recommeded
> +in such scenarios instead of remote write to per cpu areas.
> +
> +Given these drawbacks, it is adviced to seriously consider the option of
> +not using per cpu areas when you have a high rate of remote writes.
Well even any low late of remote writes still evicts the performance
sensitive cacheline from the processor that needs it. Should it be asleep
and wake up then it will be missing the cacheline so the wakeup times are
prolonged.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
