From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755253AbZESMd1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 08:33:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751051AbZESMdU (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 08:33:20 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:38135 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751104AbZESMdT (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 08:33:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 05:33:16 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, dada1@cosmosbay.com, zbr@ioremap.net, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, paulus@samba.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, jengelh@medozas.de, r000n@r000n.net, benh@kernel.crashing.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] v5 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods Message-ID: <20090519123316.GA7159@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090517191141.GA25915@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090518075630.GA10687@elte.hu> <20090518151421.GB6768@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090518154241.GA27047@elte.hu> <20090518160254.GD6768@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090519085825.GA9388@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090519085825.GA9388@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:58:25AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 05:42:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > i might be missing something fundamental here, but why not just > > > > > have per CPU helper threads, all on the same waitqueue, and wake > > > > > them up via a single wake_up() call? That would remove the SMP > > > > > cross call (wakeups do immediate cross-calls already). > > > > > > > > My concern with this is that the cache misses accessing all the > > > > processes on this single waitqueue would be serialized, slowing > > > > things down. In contrast, the bitmask that smp_call_function() > > > > traverses delivers on the order of a thousand CPUs' worth of bits > > > > per cache miss. I will give it a try, though. > > > > > > At least if you go via the migration threads, you can queue up > > > requests to them locally. But there's going to be cachemisses > > > _anyway_, since you have to access them all from a single CPU, > > > and then they have to fetch details about what to do, and then > > > have to notify the originator about completion. > > > > Ah, so you are suggesting that I use smp_call_function() to run > > code on each CPU that wakes up that CPU's migration thread? I > > will take a look at this. > > My suggestion was to queue up a dummy 'struct migration_req' up with > it (change migration_req::task == NULL to mean 'nothing') and simply > wake it up using wake_up_process(). OK. I was thinking of just using wake_up_process() without the migration_req structure, and unconditionally setting a per-CPU variable from within migration_thread() just before the list_empty() check. In your approach we would need a NULL-pointer check just before the call to __migrate_task(). > That will force a quiescent state, without the need for any extra > information, right? Yep! > This is what the scheduler code does, roughly: > > wake_up_process(rq->migration_thread); > wait_for_completion(&req.done); > > and this will always have to perform well. The 'req' could be put > into PER_CPU, and a loop could be done like this: > > for_each_online_cpu(cpu) > wake_up_process(cpu_rq(cpu)->migration_thread); > > for_each_online_cpu(cpu) > wait_for_completion(&per_cpu(req, cpu).done); > > hm? My concern is the linear slowdown for large systems, but this should be OK for modest systems (a few 10s of CPUs). However, I will try it out -- it does not need to be a long-term solution, after all. Thanx, Paul