[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101113223046.GB5445@nowhere>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 23:30:49 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Joe Korty <joe.korty@...r.com>, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, loic.minier@...aro.org,
dhaval.giani@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
houston.jim@...cast.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] a local-timer-free version of RCU
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:19:20PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:31:11PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 16:54 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > run the sched tick and if there was nothing to do
> > > for some time and we are in userspace, deactivate it.
> >
> > Not for some time, immediately, have the tick track if it was useful, if
> > it was not, have it stop itself, like:
> >
> > tick()
> > {
> > int stop = 1;
> >
> > if (nr_running > 1)
> > stop = 0;
> >
> > if(rcu_needs_cpu())
> > stop = 0;
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> > if (stop)
> > enter_nohz_mode();
> > }
>
> I am still holding out for a dyntick-hpc version of RCU that does not
> need the tick. ;-)
So you don't think it would be an appropriate solution? Keeping the tick for short
periods of time while we need it only, that looks quite a good way to try.
Hmm?
--
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