[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140813182528.GF4752@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:25:28 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 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, dhowells@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 15/16] rcu: Make RCU-tasks wait for idle
tasks
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:35:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:43:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So the first three look OK to hook rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit()
> > into, but the last two don't look so good.
> >
> > That said, if you are OK not tracing the stuff under stop_critical_timings(),
> > then I can use the RCU dyntick-idle state and not wake anything up.
>
> Either way, Steve could easily whip up a debug thing that could validate
> that. Simply WARN whenever an __mcount happens when under rcu_idle.
>
> And if we make these idle functions small enough that should not be a
> problem at all.
Right now, the CPU-idle drivers look quite hairy and error-prone.
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