* Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> But I agree with Arjan - I think the fundamental problem is that cpu
> hotplug locking is just is fundamentally badly designed as-is. There's
> really very little point to making it a _lock_ per se, since most
> people really want more of a "I'm using this CPU, don't try to remove
> it right now" thing which is more of a ref-counting-like issue.
we'd also need a facility to wait on that refcount - i.e. a waitqueue.
Which means we'd have a "refcount + waitqueue", which is equivalent to a
"recursive, sleeping read-lock", where the write-side could be used as a
simple facility to "wait for all readers to go away and block new
readers from entering the critical sections". [which type of lock Linux
does not have right now. rwsems come the closest but they dont recurse.]
Also, the hotplug lock is global right now which is pretty unscalable,
so the rw-mutex should also be per-CPU, and the hotplug locking API
should be changed to something like:
cpu = cpu_hotplug_lock();
...
cpu_hotplug_unlock(cpu);
To enable a task to schedule away (and potentially migrate to another
CPU) with the per-CPU lock held but still be able to unlock the right
per-cpu lock. [this above approach is quite similar to how we do
sleeping per-cpu locks in -rt.]
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
