[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140614130548.GC16504@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:05:50 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Only pin GP kthread when full dynticks is actually
used
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:06:06PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> One complication... So if the grace period has gone on for a long time,
> and you are returning to kernel mode, RCU will need the scheduling-clock
> tick. However, in that very same situation, if you are returning to
> idle or to NO_HZ_FULL userspace execution, RCU does -not- need the
> scheduling-clock tick set.
Right.
> One way I could do this is to have rcu_needs_cpu() return three values:
> Zero for RCU doesn't need a scheduling-clock tick for any reason,
> one if RCU needs a scheduling-clock tick only if returning to kernel
> mode, and two if RCU unconditionally needs the scheduling-clock tick.
> Would that work, or is there a better approach?
For an interrupt, based on the context tracking state, I can check where we
return afterward if we are in an interrupt using context_tracking_in_user().
Now probably rcu_needs_cpu() should check that by itself and, depending
on where we return, only tell if we keep the tick or not.
What do you think?
--
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