[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1206141820181.3086@ionos>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:20:39 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 2/5] smpboot: Provide infrastructure for percpu
hotplug threads
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 04:56:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 07:47 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > RCU callback processing consumes the entire CPU in RCU_BOOST case where
> > > processing runs at real-time priority. This is analogous to RT throttling
> > > in the scheduler.
> >
> > But previously we can in non-preemptible softirq context, why would if
> > behave differently when done from a RT task?
>
> In -rt, yes, but in mainline, ksoftirqd does not run at RT prio, right?
>
> > Also, no its not quite like the throttling, that really idles the cpu
> > even if there's no SCHED_OTHER tasks to run.
>
> Agreed, not -exactly- like throttling, but it has a broadly similar
> goal, namely to prevent a given type of processing from starving
> everything else in the system.
>
> That said, why does throttling idle the CPU even if there is no other
> SCHED_OTHER tasks to run?
For simplicity reasons :)
Thanks,
tglx
--
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