[Ksummit-discuss] No more module removal -- Unconference track
Masami Hiramatsu
masami.hiramatsu.pt at hitachi.com
Tue Aug 26 05:24:33 UTC 2014
(2014/08/25 20:05), Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
>> What I found is that the module unloading involving 2 stop_machine()s
>> for each module removing. It must not be needed. However, since the
>> module's ref-counter is over-optimized for BIG SMP machine, we can't
>> remove it without replacing it. But it means some performance regression
>> can happen on such big-scale SMP machines (not the laptop nor normal smp
>> machine).
>
> Is that really a big problem in practice?
>
> I.e. are there valid usecase scenarios where module load / unload should
> be considered a hotpath where every ms of performance would matter?
There could be. However, in usual usecases, I guess people will not want
to unload it. Systemtap or something "additional" module users will
need to unload modules. (kpatch could be one of them, but I also think
no one want to remove applied patches anyway.)
I just tried to show that the kmodule unload is the one who uses
stop_machine heavily but it is not necessary :)
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt at hitachi.com
More information about the Ksummit-discuss
mailing list