Re: [RFC][PATCH] remove rq->lock from cpuacct cgroup (Was Re:[PATCH] cpuacct: add a branch prediction

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 19:42 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra  wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 18:04 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 08:42 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Furthermore, if you want something like schedule_work_on() for each
> >> >> cpu,
> >> >> > there's schedule_on_each_cpu().
> >> >> >
> >> >> It can't pass arguments...Maybe I should use rq->lock here to reset
> >> >> other cpu's value.
> >> >
> >> > Why bother with serializing the reset code at all?
> >> >
> >>   I don't think reset v.s. read is problem but reset v.s. increment
> >>   (read-modify-write) can't be ?
> >
> > Sure, can be, do we care?
> >
> If small/easy code allows us to declare "there are any racy case!
> and you don't have to check whether you successfully reseted",
> it's worth to do I think.

smp_call_function() it is...

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/