[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150224124112.3d4c728c@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:41:12 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jörn Engel <joern@...estorage.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: revert 43fa5460fe60
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:19:06 -0800
Jörn Engel <joern@...estorage.com> wrote:
> Well, reverting was my first instinct, but for different reasons I think
> it is wrong. Simply reverting can result in the high priority thread
> moving from one cpu with a running process to a different cpu with a
> running process. In both cases you may trip over a mole, so nothing
> much is gained.
>
> But if you know that the destination cpu is idle, you can avoid any
> moles, give or take a small race window maybe. The moles are still
> present and you still need some debug tool to detect them and fix them
> over time. But as cpus increase over time, your chances of getting
> lucky in spite of bad kernel code also increase.
>
> Is that a worthwhile approach, at least for non PREEMPT?
I don't know. Could probably add it if CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set. Just
check if an idle CPU is available in that case and move it, as non
PREEMPT kernels will have long latencies anyway.
-- Steve
--
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