[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <562E9761.1060601@ezchip.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:13:05 -0400
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 04/14] task_isolation: add initial support
On 10/20/2015 08:29 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Also, doesn't RCU need to have a few ticks go by before it can safely
> disable itself from userspace? I recall something like that. Paul?
The current patch series supports that by testing tick_nohz_tick_stopped(),
which internally only becomes true after tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick()
manages to stop the tick, and it won't if rcu_needs_cpu() is true.
--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com
--
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