Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:17:01 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at>, oleg@redhat.com,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dave@stgolabs.net, riel@redhat.com,
        viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/13] percpu-rwsem: Optimize readers and reduce
 global impact
Message-ID: <20150625191701.GA5013@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <20150622121623.291363374@infradead.org>
 <20150622122256.064223889@infradead.org>
 <20150623072811.GB20073@opentech.at>
 <20150625190800.GW19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150625190800.GW19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1913
Lines: 48

Hello,

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:08:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >  mm/memcontrol.c:mem_cgroup_read_events
> >  mm/memcontrol.c:mem_cgroup_read_stat
> 
> Those seem to be hotplug challenged. I'm thinking dropping that
> nocpu_base.count[] crap and just iterating all possible CPUs would've
> been much easier.

A patch doing that is already queued for this merge window.  IIRC,
it's included as part of cgroup writeback updates.

> > > +#define per_cpu_sum(var)                                             \
> > > +({                                                                   \
> > > +     typeof(var) __sum = 0;                                          \
> > > +     int cpu;                                                        \
> > > +     for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)                                      \
> > > +             __sum += per_cpu(var, cpu);                             \
> > > +     __sum;                                                          \
> > > +})
> > > +
> > 
> > so maybe put it into include/linux/percpu.h ?

percpu-defs.h would be the better place for it.

> Yes I can do that.
> 
> We can try and use it more after that, there seems to be loads of places
> that could use this fs/namespace.c fs/inode.c etc..

Hmmm... the only worry I have about this is people using it on u64 on
32bit machines.  CPU local ops can do split updates on lower and upper
halves and the remotely-read value will be surprising.  We have the
same issues w/ regular per_cpu accesses to but the summing function /
macro is better at giving the false sense of security.  Prolly
limiting it upto ulong size is a good idea?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/