On 10/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:00:20PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > And again, even
> >
> > for (;;) {
> > percpu_down_write();
> > percpu_up_write();
> > }
> >
> > should not completely block the readers.
>
> Sure there's a tiny window, but don't forget that a reader will have to
> wait for the gp_state cacheline to transfer to shared state and the
> per-cpu refcount cachelines to be brought back into exclusive mode and
> the above can be aggressive enough that by that time we'll observe
> state == blocked again.
Sure, but don't forget that other callers of cpu_down() do a lot more
work before/after they actually call cpu_hotplug_begin/end().
> So I'll stick to waitcount -- as you can see in the patches I've just
> posted.
I still do not believe we need this waitcount "in practice" ;)
But even if I am right this is minor and we can reconsider this later,
so please forget.
Oleg.
--
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>