From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
akpm@linuxfoundation.org, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [pchecks v1 3/4] Use raw_cpu_ops for refresh_cpu_vm_stats()
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:43:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130924074351.GF28538@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000001414c47a1ab-17a7541e-54ac-4c15-8a02-66c83c358cbd-000000@email.amazonses.com>
* Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:
> We do not care about races for the expiration logic in
> refresh_cpu_vm_stats(). Draining is a rare act after all.
> No need to create too much overhead for that.
>
> Use raw_cpu_ops there.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
>
> Index: linux/mm/vmstat.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/mm/vmstat.c 2013-09-23 10:20:31.742262228 -0500
> +++ linux/mm/vmstat.c 2013-09-23 10:20:31.738262268 -0500
> @@ -439,6 +439,10 @@ static inline void fold_diff(int *diff)
> * statistics in the remote zone struct as well as the global cachelines
> * with the global counters. These could cause remote node cache line
> * bouncing and will have to be only done when necessary.
> + *
> + * Note that we have to use raw_cpu ops here. The thread is pinned
> + * to a specific processor but the preempt checking logic does not
> + * know about this.
That's not actually true - debug_smp_processor_id() does a check for the
pinning status of the current task:
/*
* Kernel threads bound to a single CPU can safely use
* smp_processor_id():
*/
if (cpumask_equal(tsk_cpus_allowed(current), cpumask_of(this_cpu)))
goto out;
You should factor out those existing debug checks and reuse them, instead
of using inferior ones.
Note that debug_smp_processor_id() can probably be optimized a bit: today
we have p->nr_cpus_allowed which tracks the pinning status, so instead of
the above line we could write this cheaper form:
if (current->nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
goto out;
(This should help on kernels configured for larger systems where the
cpumask is non-trivial.)
What we cannot do is to hide the weakness of the debug check you added by
adding various workarounds to core code.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-24 7:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20130923191256.584672290@linux.com>
2013-09-23 19:12 ` [pchecks v1 1/4] Subject; percpu: Add raw_cpu_ops Christoph Lameter
2013-09-23 19:12 ` [pchecks v1 2/4] Use raw cpu ops for calls that would trigger with checks Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 7:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-24 7:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-24 12:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-09-24 7:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-23 19:24 ` [pchecks v1 3/4] Use raw_cpu_ops for refresh_cpu_vm_stats() Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 7:43 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-09-23 19:24 ` [pchecks v1 4/4] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 8:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-24 14:24 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 15:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-24 15:35 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 17:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-25 16:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-25 18:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-27 14:36 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-28 8:52 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20130924074351.GF28538@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=srostedt@redhat.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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