[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201003291716.42504.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:16:42 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sivanich@....com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, dipankar@...ibm.com, josh@...edesktop.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, oleg@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] cpuhog: implement and use cpuhog
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:43:31 pm Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Peter.
>
> On 03/11/2010 04:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > cpuhog as a name doesn't work for me, stop-machine had a name that
> > described its severity and impact, cpuhog makes me think of while(1);.
> >
> > Can't we keep the stop_machine name and make that a workqueue interface
> > like you propose?
> >
> > That way we'd end up with something like:
> >
> > kernel/stop_machine.c
> > int stop_cpu(int cpu, stop_fn_t fn, void *arg)
> > int stop_machine(struct cpumask *mask, stop_fn_t fn, void *arg)
>
> The distinction would be diabling of IRQ on each CPU.
> hog_[one_]cpu[s]() schedule highest priority task to, well, hog the
> cpu but doesn't affect contextless part of the cpu (irq, bh, whatnot).
I rather like the name. And the stop_machine name is still there; it's just
using cpuhog rather than workqueues.
Ugly things should have ugly names.
For Patch 2/4 at least:
Acked-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Great work Tejun!
Rusty.
--
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