Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memorybarrier

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 08:12:55PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 06:16:40PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 18:05 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Then we should have O(tasks) for spinlocks taken, and 
> > > > O(min(tasks, CPUS)) for IPIs.
> > > 
> > > And for nr tasks >> CPUS, this may help too:
> > > 
> > > > cpumask = 0;
> > > > foreach task {
> > > 
> > > 	if (cpumask == online_cpus)
> > > 		break;
> > > 
> > > > 	spin_lock(task_rq(task)->rq->lock);
> > > > 	if (task_rq(task)->curr == task)
> > > > 		cpu_set(task_cpu(task), cpumask);
> > > > 	spin_unlock(task_rq(task)->rq->lock);
> > > > }
> > > > send_ipi(cpumask);
> > 
> > Good point, erring on the side of sending too many IPIs is safe.  One
> > might even be able to just send the full set if enough of the CPUs were
> > running the current process and none of the remainder were running
> > real-time threads.  And yes, it would then be necessary to throttle
> > calls to sys_membarrier().
> > 
> > Quickly hiding behind a suitable boulder...  ;-)
> 
> :)
> 
> One quick counter-argument against IPI-to-all: that will wake up all
> CPUs, including those which are asleep. Not really good for
> energy-saving.

Good point.

							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/