Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] accelerate grace period if lastnon-dynticked CPU

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:39:22PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 02:04:34AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I could indeed do that.  However, there is nothing stopping the
> > more-active CPU from going into dynticks-idle mode between the time
> > that I decide to push the callback to it and the time I actually do
> > the pushing.  :-(
> > 
> > I considered pushing the callbacks to the orphanage, but that is a
> > global lock that I would rather not acquire on each dyntick-idle
> > transition.
> 
> Well we already have to do atomic operations on the nohz mask, so
> maybe it would be acceptable to actually have a spinlock there to
> serialise operations on the nohz mask and also allow some subsystem
> specific things (synchronisation here should allow either one of
> those above approaches).
> 
> It's not going to be zero cost, but seeing as there is already the
> contended cacheline there, it's not going to introduce a
> fundamentally new bottleneck.

Good point, although a contended global lock is nastier than a contended
cache line.

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/