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

[Paul E. McKenney]

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...  ;-)

							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/