- On Jul 5, 2019, at 5:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> > - On Jul 5, 2019, at 4:49 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
>> > > * Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> > >> The semanti
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > - On Jul 5, 2019, at 4:49 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
> > > * Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > >> The semantic I am looking for here is C11's relaxed atomics.
> > >
> > > What does this mean?
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> - On Jul 5, 2019, at 4:49 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
> > * Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> The semantic I am looking for here is C11's relaxed atomics.
> >
> > What does this mean?
>
> C11 states:
>
> "Atomic operations specifying me
- On Jul 5, 2019, at 4:49 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
>> - On Jul 4, 2019, at 6:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> >> - On Jul 4, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner t..
* Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> - On Jul 4, 2019, at 6:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> - On Jul 4, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
> >> >
> >> > num_online_cpus() is racy today vs. CPU hot
- On Jul 4, 2019, at 6:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> - On Jul 4, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
>> >
>> > num_online_cpus() is racy today vs. CPU hotplug operations as
>> > long as you don't h
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> - On Jul 4, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
> >
> > num_online_cpus() is racy today vs. CPU hotplug operations as
> > long as you don't hold the hotplug lock.
>
> Fair point, AFAIU none of the loads performed within num
- On Jul 4, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
>> - On Jul 4, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
>>
>> > Revaluating the bitmap wheight of the online cpus bitmap in every
>> > invocation of
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> - On Jul 4, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
>
> > Revaluating the bitmap wheight of the online cpus bitmap in every
> > invocation of num_online_cpus() over and over is a pretty useless
> > exercise. Especially when nu
- On Jul 4, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
> Revaluating the bitmap wheight of the online cpus bitmap in every
> invocation of num_online_cpus() over and over is a pretty useless
> exercise. Especially when num_online_cpus() is used in code pathes like the
> IPI de
Revaluating the bitmap wheight of the online cpus bitmap in every
invocation of num_online_cpus() over and over is a pretty useless
exercise. Especially when num_online_cpus() is used in code pathes like the
IPI delivery of x86 or the membarrier code.
Cache the number of online CPUs in the core an
11 matches
Mail list logo