On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:54:46 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:50:17AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:32:41 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > +extern void __get_online_cpus(void);
> > > +
> > > +static inline void get_online_cpus(void)
> > > +{
> > > + might_sleep();
> > > +
> > > + preempt_disable();
> > > + if (likely(!__cpuhp_writer || __cpuhp_writer == current))
> > > + this_cpu_inc(__cpuhp_refcount);
> > > + else
> > > + __get_online_cpus();
> > > + preempt_enable();
> > > +}
> >
> >
> > This isn't much different than srcu_read_lock(). What about doing
> > something like this:
> >
> > static inline void get_online_cpus(void)
> > {
> > might_sleep();
> >
> > srcu_read_lock(&cpuhp_srcu);
> > if (unlikely(__cpuhp_writer || __cpuhp_writer != current)) {
> > srcu_read_unlock(&cpuhp_srcu);
> > __get_online_cpus();
> > current->online_cpus_held++;
> > }
> > }
>
> There's a full memory barrier in srcu_read_lock(), while there was no
> such thing in the previous fast path.
Yeah, I mentioned this to Paul, and we talked about making
srcu_read_lock() work with no mb's. But currently, doesn't
get_online_cpus() just take a mutex? What's wrong with a mb() as it
still kicks ass over what is currently there today?
>
> Also, why current->online_cpus_held()? That would make the write side
> O(nr_tasks) instead of O(nr_cpus).
?? I'm not sure I understand this. The online_cpus_held++ was there for
recursion. Can't get_online_cpus() nest? I was thinking it can. If so,
once the "__cpuhp_writer" is set, we need to do __put_online_cpus() as
many times as we did a __get_online_cpus(). I don't know where the
O(nr_tasks) comes from. The ref here was just to account for doing the
old "get_online_cpus" instead of a srcu_read_lock().
>
> > static inline void put_online_cpus(void)
> > {
> > if (unlikely(current->online_cpus_held)) {
> > current->online_cpus_held--;
> > __put_online_cpus();
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > srcu_read_unlock(&cpuhp_srcu);
> > }
>
> Also, you might not have noticed but, srcu_read_{,un}lock() have an
> extra idx thing to pass about. That doesn't fit with the hotplug api.
I'll have to look a that, as I'm not exactly sure about the idx thing.
>
> >
> > Then have the writer simply do:
> >
> > __cpuhp_write = current;
> > synchronize_srcu(&cpuhp_srcu);
> >
> > <grab the mutex here>
>
> How does that do reader preference?
Well, the point I was trying to do was to let readers go very fast
(well, with a mb instead of a mutex), and then when the CPU hotplug
happens, it goes back to the current method.
That is, once we set __cpuhp_write, and then run synchronize_srcu(),
the system will be in a state that does what it does today (grabbing
mutexes, and upping refcounts).
I thought the whole point was to speed up the get_online_cpus() when no
hotplug is happening. This does that, and is rather simple. It only
gets slow when hotplug is in effect.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>