Re: [PATCH RFC] v5 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods
From: Paul E. McKenney <hidden>
Date: 2009-05-18 16:03:07
Also in:
lkml, netfilter-devel
From: Paul E. McKenney <hidden>
Date: 2009-05-18 16:03:07
Also in:
lkml, netfilter-devel
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 05:42:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Paul E. McKenney [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
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. Thanx, Paul