* Metzger, Markus T <markus.t.metzger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ingo Molnar [mailto:mingo@xxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:58 AM
> >To: Metzger, Markus T
>
>
> >* Metzger, Markus T <markus.t.metzger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> > static void trace_bts_prepare(struct trace_iterator *iter)
> >> > {
> >> >- mutex_lock(&bts_tracer_mutex);
> >> >+ spin_lock(&bts_tracer_lock);
> >> >
> >> > on_each_cpu(trace_bts_cpu, iter->tr, 1);
> >> >
> >> >- mutex_unlock(&bts_tracer_mutex);
> >> >+ spin_unlock(&bts_tracer_lock);
> >> > }
> >>
> >> Whereas start/stop are relatively fast, the above operation is
> >> rather expensive. Would it make sense to use
> >> schedule_on_each_cpu() instead of on_each_cpu()?
> >
> >it's perfectly fine to do that on_each_cpu() under the spinlock.
> >schedule_on_each_cpu() would likely be more expensive - and for
> >no good reason.
>
> OK.
>
> And I assume you like the spinlock better than the
> get/put_online_cpus(), as well.
yeah - and get/put_online_cpus is sleepable too, so it doesnt
really help unless i'm missing something ...
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|