[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170801132309.GS3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 06:23:09 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
maged michael <maged.michael@...il.com>,
gromer <gromer@...gle.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] membarrier: expedited private command
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:22:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[ . . . ]
> As to scheduler IPIs, those are limited to the CPUs the user is limited
> to and are rate limited by the wakeup-latency of the tasks. After all,
> all the time a task is runnable but not running, wakeups are no-ops.
Can't that wakeup-latency limitation be overcome by a normal user simply
by having lots of tasks to wake up, which then go back to sleep almost
immediately? Coupled with very a low-priority CPU-bound task on each CPU?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists