[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120125115906.GG3687@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:59:06 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] RCU changes for v3.3
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:36:04PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:51:24PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Well, that depends. Anything you're actually accomplishing when you're
> > optimising at that level is at the less than a milliwatt level.
> OK, good point.
> In the meantime, here are some alleged fixes for the corresponding bug in
> the ARM tree. Some of these are "interesting" in the sense that RCU can
> be used more deeply in the idle loop than I would believe to be safe,
> for example, via locking->lockdep->RCU after some interesting pieces
> of hardware have been shut off. I took my best guess and commented the
> ones that I am least sure of.
> Thoughts? Other than I need to CC a cast of thousands? (I cannot break
> this up without having git bisect points with busted RCU on ARM.)
Not really - I don't know ARM CPU side stuff in any detail, I mostly
work on things external to the SoCs.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists