[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] rcu: Use cpus_read_lock() while looking at cpu_online_mask
On 2018-10-15 23:07:15 [+0800], Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi, Sebastian
Hi Boqun,

> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 04:42:17PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2018-10-13 06:48:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > My concern would be that it would queue it by default for the current
> > > CPU, which would serialize the processing, losing the concurrency of
> > > grace-period initialization. But that was a long time ago, and perhaps
> > > workqueues have changed.
> >
> > but the code here is always using the first CPU of a NUMA node or did I
> > miss something?
> >
> The thing is the original way is to pick one CPU for a *RCU* node to
> run the grace-period work, but with your proposal, if a RCU node is
> smaller than a NUMA node (having fewer CPUs), we could end up having two
> grace-period works running on one CPU. I think that's Paul's concern.

Ah. Okay. From what I observed, the RCU nodes and NUMA nodes were 1:1
here. Noted.
Given that I can enqueue a work item on an offlined CPU I don't see why
commit fcc6354365015 ("rcu: Make expedited GPs handle CPU 0 being
offline") should make a difference. Any objections to just revert it?

> Regards,
> Boqun


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-15 17:09    [W:0.096 / U:1.760 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site