From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH tip/sched/core] sched/rt: Simplify the IPI rt balancing logic
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:43:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170424084357.645d6f18@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170424085700.vm2wpn5gac57vb2n@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:57:00 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > +#ifdef HAVE_RT_PUSH_IPI
> > + /*
> > + * For IPI pull requests, loop across the rto_mask.
> > + */
> > + struct irq_work rto_push_work;
> > + raw_spinlock_t rto_lock;
> > + /* These atomics are updated outside of a lock */
> > + atomic_t rto_loop_next;
> > + atomic_t rto_loop_start;
> > + /* These are only updated and read withn rto_lock */
> > + int rto_loop;
> > + int rto_cpu;
> > +#endif
>
> Don't you think it would make sense to place the rto_lock near the
> variables it protects? And if those atomics are supposed to increase
> performance, do they want to share the same cacheline with the lock?
Good point! I'll update.
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-24 12:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-22 2:49 [RFC][PATCH tip/sched/core] sched/rt: Simplify the IPI rt balancing logic Steven Rostedt
2017-04-22 18:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-04-24 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-24 12:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-04-24 12:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-04-24 12:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-24 13:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-04-24 13:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-24 8:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-24 12:43 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2017-04-24 15:53 ` [PATCH RT v2] " Steven Rostedt
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=20170424084357.645d6f18@gandalf.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=jkacur@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).