From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Christian Borntraeger <cborntra@de.ibm.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] Add a trigger API for efficient non-blocking waiting
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:21:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080819232108.c03660fa.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48A70185.2020600@goop.org>
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:34:13 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> There are various places in the kernel which wish to wait for a
> condition to come true while in a non-blocking context. Existing
> examples of this are stop_machine() and smp_call_function_mask().
> (No doubt there are other instances of this pattern in the tree.)
>
> Thus far, the only way to achieve this is by spinning with a
> cpu_relax() loop. This is fine if the condition becomes true very
> quickly, but it is not ideal:
>
> - There's little opportunity to put the CPUs into a low-power state.
> cpu_relax() may do this to some extent, but if the wait is
> relatively long, then we can probably do better.
If this change saves a significant amount of power then we should fix
the offending callsites.
> - In a virtual environment, spinning virtual CPUs just waste CPU
> resources, and may steal CPU time from vCPUs which need it to make
> progress. The trigger API allows the vCPUs to give up their CPU
> entirely. The s390 people observed a problem with stop_machine
> taking a very long time (seconds) when there are more vcpus than
> available cpus.
If this change saves a significant amount of virtual-cpu-time then we
should fix the offending callsites.
Tell me I'm wrong...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-20 6:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-16 16:34 [PATCH RFC 1/3] Add a trigger API for efficient non-blocking waiting Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-16 17:47 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-08-17 23:02 ` Randy Dunlap
2008-08-20 6:21 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2008-08-20 18:42 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-20 19:25 ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-20 20:14 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-25 0:53 ` Rusty Russell
2008-08-28 12:27 ` Christian Borntraeger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080819232108.c03660fa.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=cborntra@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox