[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090906200700.GA12714@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 22:07:01 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RCU Kconfig help text
> > > > This leaves somebody who has a laptop wondering which choice is best for
> > > > a system with only one or two cores that has CONFIG_PREEMPT defined. One
> > > > choice says it scales down nicely, the other explicitly has a 'depends on
> > > > PREEMPT' attached to it...
> > > >
> > > > (Yes, I realize in practice, the RCU sections on a laptop are probably usually
> > > > so short they don't matter in practice. I finally concluded TREE_PREEMPT was
> > > > apparently a rename of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU and went with that since that was
> > > > working for me before...)
> > >
> > > Good point -- I will add the "It also scales down nicely to smaller
> > > systems" to TREE_PREEMPT_RCU.
> > >
> > > For -really- small systems, TINY_RCU will hopefully be there at some
> > > point, but it can only handle single-CPU systems.
> >
> > If so, call it 'UP_RCU' or 'UNIPROCESSOR_RCU'?
>
> "UP_RCU". Cute!!! ;-)
>
> My hope is to drive the RCU selection directly from CONFIG_SMP and
> CONFIG_PREEMPT, so that the choice of RCU would be implicit (aside from
> things like tracing and fanout).
>
> Seem reasonable, or would you expect anyone to want to hand-select
> the RCU implementation?
Seems reasonable.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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