On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 08:50:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 02:43:27PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:10:35 -0700
> > Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > .. now we can free all the percpu data and kill the CPU ..
> > >
> > > without any locking anywhere - not stop-machine, not anything. If
> > > somebody is doing a "for_each_cpu()" (under just a regular
> > > rcu_read_lock()) and they see the bit set while it's going down, who
> > > cares? The CPU is still there, the data is accessible..
> >
> > The problem is that rcu_read_lock() requires preemption disabled unless
> > you are using the preemptable rcu tree version. There's always
> > srcu_read_lock() but that's not so free. It's basically the same as
> > what Peter is doing.
>
> No, srcu is actually more expensive in the fast path. Although possibly
> we could make SRCU more complex ;-)
Indeed. Especially if we wanted to get rid of the memory barriers in
srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock() and still allow SRCU to be used
from idle and offline CPUs! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> > There's places in the kernel that does for_each_cpu() that I'm sure you
> > don't want to disable preemption for. Especially when you start having
> > 4096 CPU machines!
>
> :-)
But shouldn't you only have to disable over each separate pass through
the loop rather across the entire loop? "I guarantee that the CPU I
just handed you will remain online through the body of the loop" rather
than "I guarantee that no CPU is going anywhere through the entire loop."
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/
