[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314627922.2816.65.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:25:22 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/32] nohz: Move rcu dynticks idle mode handling to
idle enter/exit APIs
On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 17:52 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> To prepare for nohz / idle logic split, pull out the rcu dynticks
> idle mode switching to strict idle entry/exit areas.
>
> So we make the dyntick mode possible without always involving rcu
> extended quiescent state.
Why is this a good thing? I would be thinking that if we're a userspace
bound task and we disable the tick rcu would be finished on this cpu and
thus the extended quiescent state is just what we want?
--
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