[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150217174419.GY26177@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:44:19 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch -rt 1/2] KVM: use simple waitqueue for vcpu->wq
* Peter Zijlstra | 2015-01-21 16:07:16 [+0100]:
>On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 01:16:13PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> I'm actually wondering if we should just nuke the _interruptible()
>> version of swait. As it should only be all interruptible or all not
>> interruptible, that the swait_wake() should just do the wake up
>> regardless. In which case, swait_wake() is good enough. No need to have
>> different versions where people may think do something special.
>>
>> Peter?
>
>Yeah, I think the lastest thing I have sitting here on my disk only has
>the swake_up() which does TASK_NORMAL, no choice there.
what is the swait status in terms of mainline? This sounds like it
beeing worked on.
I could take the series but then I would drop it again if the mainline
implementation changes…
Sebastian
--
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