From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp_call_function: don't use lock in call_function_data
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:47:39 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200808221147.39974.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48AE087C.4000408@goop.org>
On Friday 22 August 2008 10:29, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> There's no need for a lock in call_function_data, since it's only used
> to decrement-and-test a counter. Use an atomic instead.
Actually I wanted to convert the cpu_clear operation to be non-atomic,
and keep it under the lock. Thus the spinlock would save one atomic
operation. I simply forgot about this after Jens took over the patchset.
We could get rid of that WARN_ON branch in 2.6.28 I expect, unless we
see it trigger.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>
> ---
> kernel/smp.c | 17 ++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> ===================================================================
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> #include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> #include <linux/rculist.h>
> #include <linux/smp.h>
> +#include <asm/atomic.h>
>
> bool __read_mostly smp_single_ipi_queue = false;
>
> @@ -37,8 +38,7 @@
>
> struct call_function_data {
> struct call_single_data csd;
> - spinlock_t lock;
> - unsigned int refs;
> + atomic_t refs;
> cpumask_t cpumask;
> struct rcu_head rcu_head;
> };
> @@ -125,21 +125,13 @@
> */
> rcu_read_lock();
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(data, &queue->list, csd.list) {
> - int refs;
> -
> if (!cpu_isset(cpu, data->cpumask))
> continue;
>
> data->csd.func(data->csd.info);
>
> - spin_lock(&data->lock);
> cpu_clear(cpu, data->cpumask);
> - WARN_ON(data->refs == 0);
> - data->refs--;
> - refs = data->refs;
> - spin_unlock(&data->lock);
> -
> - if (refs)
> + if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&data->refs))
> continue;
>
> spin_lock(&queue->lock);
> @@ -379,10 +371,9 @@
> slowpath = 1;
> }
>
> - spin_lock_init(&data->lock);
> data->csd.func = func;
> data->csd.info = info;
> - data->refs = num_cpus;
> + atomic_set(&data->refs, num_cpus);
> data->cpumask = mask;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&queue->lock, flags);
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-22 1:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-22 0:29 [PATCH 1/2] smp_call_function: don't use lock in call_function_data Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-22 0:36 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-22 1:47 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
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=200808221147.39974.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
/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