On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 05:28:15AM -0800, David Lang wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
>
> >I do agree that the two layers of batching really makes things
> >subtle. I think the best we can do is to figure out some way of
> >automatic throttling in RCU and forced quiescent state under extreme
> >conditions. That way we will have less dependency on softirq
> >throttling.
>
> would it make sense to have the RCU subsystems with a threshold so that
> when more then X items are outstanding they trigger a premption of all
> other CPU's ASAP (forceing the scheduling break needed to make progress on
> clearing RCU)? This wouldn't work in all cases, but it could significantly
> reduce the problem situations.
Yes, I think it would make sense to try something like that. See Paul's earlier
mail in this thread for an example code snippet.
Thanks
Dipankar
-
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]
