[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D10B2E9.9040806@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:00:09 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>,
Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 15/15] nohz_task: Procfs interface
On 12/21/2010 10:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 02:24 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > Also, I'm not quite happy with the pure userspace restriction, but at
> > > least I see why you did that event though you didn't mention that.
> >
> > What do you mean? The fact that kernel threads can not be nohz task?
>
> No, that you key off kernel/user boundary transitions. Arguably one
> could allow simply system calls and page-faults to happen without
> restarting the tick, then again, RCU is very pervasive these days so I'm
> not quite sure you can actually make that happen.
>
For an example of a per-cpu flag that is checked on every exit with zero
additional overhead on the flag clear case, look at TIF_USER_RETURN_NOTIFY.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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