[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170519102331.0d5a8536@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 10:23:31 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Use case for TASKS_RCU
On Fri, 19 May 2017 10:04:21 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2017 06:35:50 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Simpler would be better!
> >
> > However, is it really guaranteed that one SCHED_IDLE thread cannot
> > preempt another? If not, then the trampoline-freeing SCHED_IDLE thread
> > might preempt some other SCHED_IDLE thread in the middle of a trampoline.
> > I am not seeing anything that prevents such preemption, but it is rather
> > early local time, so I could easily be missing something.
> >
> > However, if SCHED_IDLE threads cannot preempt other threads, even other
> > SCHED_IDLE threads, then your approach sounds quite promising to me.
> >
> > Steve, Peter, thoughts?
>
> SCHED_IDLE is the swapper task. There's one on each CPU, and they don't
> migrate. And they only get called when there's no other task running.
Peter just "schooled" me on IRC. I stand corrected (and he may respond
to this email too). I guess any task can become SCHED_IDLE.
But that just makes this an even less likely option for
synchronize_rcu_tasks().
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists