[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1304328786.26772.8.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 11:33:06 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, patches@...aro.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 31/86] rcu: further lower priority in
rcu_yield()
On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 01:11 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 07:51:04PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 06:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > From: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
> > >
> > > Although rcu_yield() dropped from real-time to normal priority, there
> > > is always the possibility that the competing tasks have been niced.
> > > So nice to 19 in rcu_yield() to help ensure that other tasks have a
> > > better chance of running.
> >
> > But.. that just prolongs the pain of overhead you _have_ to eat, no? In
> > a brief surge, fine, you can spread the cost out.. but how do you know
> > when it's ok to yield?
>
> I modeled this code on the existing code in ksoftirqd. But yes, this is
> a heuristic. I do believe that it is quite robust, but time will tell.
(It probably is fine, but when I see 'yield', alarms and sirens go off)
--
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