[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+8MBb+oqJZDYvmh8E6RB2MRp5fDj298Qjc4zs-rmyGkA4F3cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:41:57 -0800
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: x86, mce, Use user return notifier in mce
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> You are right. User return notifier can not be used for SRAR. I think
> that may be useful for SRAO. Where we need a way to do notify earlier
> in case of the corresponding work_queue item is not executed in time.
OK - I've been so focused on SRAR that I didn't think of the SRAO case.
But even there it seems odd to use user return notifier. We'd like the
SRAO work item to be executed promptly - but we don't care where it
is executed. So the "execute on this cpu" part of user return notifiers
doesn't quite fit.
Is there a concept of "high priority work queue"?
-Tony
--
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