[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130625220152.GH3828@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:01:52 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC nohz_full 0/8] Provide infrastructure for full-system
idle
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:49:47PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Note that this version pays attention to CPUs that have taken an NMI
> > from idle. It is not clear to me that NMI handlers can safely access
> > the time on a system that is long-term idle. Unless someone tells me
> > that it is somehow safe to access time from an NMI from idle, I will
> > remove NMI support in the next version.
>
> NMI cannot access any time related functions independent of NOHZ, long
> term idle or whatever you come up with:
>
> write_seqcount_begin(&timekeeper_seq);
>
> ---> NMI
> ...
> do {
> seq = read_seqcount_begin(&timekeeper_seq);
> } while (read_seqcount_retry(&timekeeper_seq, seq));
>
> Guess how well that works ....
Woo-hoo!!! I will yank the NMI support on the next version. Thank
you for the info!
Thanx, Paul
--
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