[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150420211504.GW5561@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:15:04 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT RFC PULL rcu/urgent] Prevent Kconfig from asking pointless
questions
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:40:49PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:09:03AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > The sysfs knob might be nice, but as far as I know nobody has been
> > complaining about it.
> >
> > Besides, we already have the rcutree.kthread_prio= kernel-boot parameter.
> > So how about if the Kconfig parameter selects either SCHED_OTHER
> > (the default) or SCHED_FIFO:1, and then the boot parameter can be used
> > to select other values.
>
> Hmm, what priority is this for anyway. To change the priority of the boost
> value at run time, do we only need to change the priority of the rcub threads?
>
> And the priority of the other rcu threads can change as well with a simple
> chrt?
>
> If that's the case, then we don't need a sysctl knob at all.
For the grace-period kthreads and the boost kthread, that is the case.
It is also the case for the per-CPU kthreads that invoke RCU callbacks
for the non-offloaded RCU_BOOST configuration (and that replace all
softirq RCU work in -rt).
So, should I just ditch all of the priority-setting within RCU and tell
users to just use chrt?
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