[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140702175501.GW4603@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:55:01 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Parallelize and economize NOCB kthread
wakeups
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 07:26:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:08:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > As were others, not that long ago. Today is the first hint that I got
> > that you feel otherwise. But it does look like the softirq approach to
> > callback processing needs to stick around for awhile longer. Nice to
> > hear that softirq is now "sane and normal" again, I guess. ;-)
>
> Nah, softirqs are still totally annoying :-)
Name me one thing that isn't annoying. ;-)
> So I've lost detail again, but it seems to me that on all CPUs that are
> actually getting ticks, waking tasks to process the RCU state is
> entirely over doing it. Might as well keep processing their RCU state
> from the tick as was previously done.
And that is in fact the approach taken by my patch. For which I just
kicked off testing, so expect an update later today. (And that -is-
optimistic! A pessimistic viewpoint would hold that the patch would
turn out to be so broken that it would take -weeks- to get a fix!)
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