[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49061AF0.8070106@colorfullife.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:48:00 +0100
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dipankar@...ibm.com,
josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, schamp@....com, niv@...ibm.com,
dvhltc@...ibm.com, ego@...ibm.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
andi@...stfloor.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Agreed. Perhaps a good change to make while introducing stall detection
> to preemptable RCU -- there would then be three examples, which should
> allow good generalization.
>
Two implementations. IMHO the current rcu-classic code should be dropped
immediately when you add rcu-tree:
rcu-classic is buggy, as far as I can see long-running interrupts on
nohz cpus are not handled correctly. I don't think it makes sense to
keep it in the kernel in parallel to rcu-tree.
I would propose that rcu-tree replaces rcu-classic.
I'll continue to update rcu-state, I think that it will achieve lower
latency than rcu-tree [average/max time between call_rcu() and
destruction callback] and it doesn't have the irq disabled loop to find
the missing cpus.
If I find decent benchmarks where I can quantify the advantages, then
I'll propose to merge rcu-state as a third implementation in addition to
rcu-tree and rcu-preempt.
Paul: What do you think?
--
Manfred
--
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