Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1539769

Re: [RFC 0/5] rcu: Introduce leaf_node_for_each_mask_possible_cpu() and its friend

From "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [RFC 0/5] rcu: Introduce leaf_node_for_each_mask_possible_cpu() and its friend
Date 2016-12-10 05:30 +0100
Message-ID <sMHsl-3Pm-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <sMp2p-12O-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <sMD5n-17m-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sME1r-1Gv-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 08:45:38AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 03:49:45PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 04:48:22PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > While reading the discussion at:
> > > 
> > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148044253400769
> > 
> > This discussion was for stalls specifically, rather than for routine
> > scans of the bitmasks.
> > 
> > But it does look to save some code, so worth looking into.
> > 
> > > I figured we might use this fact to save some extra checks in RCU core code,
> > > currently we iterate over all the possible CPUs on a leaf node, check whether
> > > they were masked in a certain mask and do something. However, given the fact
> > > that the masks on a leaf node should always be sparse than the corresponding
> > > part of cpu_possible_mask, we'd better iterate over all bits in a mask and
> > > check whether the corresponding CPU is possible or not.
> > > 
> > > So I made this RFC, I did a simple build/boot/rcutorture test on my box with
> > > SMP=4, nothing bad happens. Currently I'm waiting for the 0day and trying to
> > > test this one a bigger system, in the meanwhile, looking forwards to any
> > > comment and suggestion.
> > > 
> > > So thoughts?
> > 
> > By analogy with for_each_cpu() and for_each_possible_cpu(), the name
> > should instead be for_each_leaf_node_cpu(), the tradition of excessively
> > long names in RCU notwithstanding.  ;-)
> > 
> 
> Make sense ;-)
> 
> I think it's more appropriate to call it for_each_leaf_node_mask_cpu(),
> because we don't iterate all cpus of a leaf node. The word "possible"
> could be dropped because obviously we won't iterate over "impossible"
> cpus in a leaf node ;-)

C'mon, Boqun!  The for_each_leaf_node_cpu() is not only consistent
with the for_each_cpu() family, it is shorter!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> Will modify that in next version.
> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[RFC 0/5] rcu: Introduce leaf_node_for_each_mask_possible_cpu() and its friend Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 09:50 +0100
  [RFC 5/5] rcu: Use leaf_node_for_each_mask_*() for leaf node online CPU iteration Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:00 +0100
  Re: [RFC 0/5] rcu: Introduce leaf_node_for_each_mask_possible_cpu()  and its friend "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-12-10 00:50 +0100
    Re: [RFC 0/5] rcu: Introduce leaf_node_for_each_mask_possible_cpu()  and its friend Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 01:50 +0100
      Re: [RFC 0/5] rcu: Introduce leaf_node_for_each_mask_possible_cpu()  and its friend "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-12-10 05:30 +0100
        Re: [RFC 0/5] rcu: Introduce leaf_node_for_each_mask_possible_cpu()  and its friend Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 14:40 +0100
          Re: [RFC 0/5] rcu: Introduce leaf_node_for_each_mask_possible_cpu()  and its friend "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-12-10 18:40 +0100
            Re: [RFC 0/5] rcu: Introduce leaf_node_for_each_mask_possible_cpu()  and its friend Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 01:10 +0100

csiph-web