[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140213093800.GA6078@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:38:00 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: Add a new lockless wake-from-idle implementation
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> This is a strawman proposal to simplify the idle implementation, eliminate
> a race
> 
> Benefits over current code:
>  - ttwu_queue_remote doesn't use an IPI unless needed
Cool.
>  - The diffstat should speak for itself :)
Neat!
>  - Less racy.  Spurious IPIs are possible, but only in narrow windows or
>    when two wakeups occur in rapid succession.
>  - Seems to work (?)
> 
> Issues:
>  - Am I doing the percpu stuff right?
>  - Needs work on non-x86 architectures
Absolutely, and with the least amount of disruption possible, as 
people are not very good at testing 'all' of them.
>  - The !CONFIG_SMP case needs to be checked
Which also happens to be the default for half of all non-x86 arches.
>  - Is "idlepoll" a good name for the new code?  It doesn't have *that*
>    much to do with the idle state.  Maybe cpukick?
'cpukick', hands down.
> If this turns out okay, TIF_NEED_RESCHED could possibly be deleted as well.
Cool ...
Thanks,
	Ingo
--
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