[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070627163025.GB8604@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:30:25 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, josh@...edesktop.org,
dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Force rcutorture tasks to spread over CPUs
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:30:55AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:28:04 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > + while (!startwriters)
> > > + barrier(); /* Force scheduler to spread over CPUs. */
> >
> > one wonders whether a cpu_relax() would be a bit nicer here. That
> > implicitly does a barrier().
> >
> > This patch doesn't make much sense for non-SMP builds?
>
> i think this patch should be unnecessary because we found the real SMP
> balancing bug in the upstream scheduler causing this rcu problem, see:
>
> commit 92c4ca5c3a5e180e9762438db235f41d192cb955
> Author: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
> Date: Sat Jun 23 17:16:33 2007 -0700
>
> sched: fix next_interval determination in idle_balance()
Ingo is correct -- applying the above patch caused the scheduler to
correctly balance the rcutorture tasks, so that my patch to rcutorture
is no longer needed. Which is a very good thing! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists