[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140729173733.GZ12054@laptop.lan>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:37:33 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 2/9] rcu: Provide cond_resched_rcu_qs()
to force quiescent states in long loops
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 07:36:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > No, but why can't we make the regular cond_resched() do this?
> >
> > Well, I got a lot of grief when I tried it a few weeks ago.
> >
> > But from what I can see, you are the maintainer or cond_resched(), so
> > if you are good with making the normal cond_resched() do this, I am
> > more than happy to make it so! ;-)
>
> Well, its the 'obvious' thing to do. But clearly I haven't tried so I'm
> blissfully unaware of any problems. And the Changelog didn't inform me
> either (you had a link in there, which I didn't read :-)
Then again, last time we touched cond_resched() we had a scalability
issue or somesuch, or am I misremembering things?
--
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