[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1406230851120.2892@gentwo.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:53:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, umgwanakikbuti@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu] Reduce overhead of cond_resched() checks
for RCU
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I like this approach *far* better. This is the kind of thing I had in
> > mind when I suggested using the fqs machinery: remove the poll entirely
> > and just thwack a CPU if it takes too long without a quiescent state.
> > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
>
> Glad you like it. Not a fan of the IPI myself, but then again if you
> are spending that must time looping in the kernel, an extra IPI is the
> least of your problems.
Good. The IPI is only used when actually necessary. The code inserted
was always there and always executed although rarely needed.
--
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