* Dipankar Sarma <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is duplicating code. That can be easily fixed, but we need to
> figure out what we really want from RCU when we are about to switch
> off the ticks. It is hard if you want to finish off all the pending
> RCUs and go to nohz state. Can you live with backing out if there are
> pending RCUs ?
the thing is that when we go idle we /want/ to process whatever delayed
work there might be - rate limited or not. Do you agree with that
approach? I consider this a performance feature as well: this way we can
utilize otherwise lost idle time. It is not a problem that we dont
'batch' this processing: we are really idle and we've got free cycles to
burn. We could even do an RCU processing loop that immediately breaks
out if need_resched() gets set [by an IRQ or by another CPU].
secondly, i think i saw functionality problems when RCU was not
completed before going idle - for example synchronize_rcu() on another
CPU would hang.
what approach would you suggest to achieve these goals?
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]
