[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190805174800.GK28441@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:48:00 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 14/14] rcu/nohz: Make multi_cpu_stop()
enable tick on all online CPUs
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 05:50:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 07:54:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > Right; so clearly we're not understanding what's happening. That seems
> > > like a requirement for actually doing a patch.
> >
> > Almost but not quite. It is a requirement for a patch *that* *is*
> > *supposed* *to* *be* *a* *fix*. If you are trying to prohibit me from
> > writing experimental patches, please feel free to take a long walk on
> > a short pier.
> >
> > Understood???
>
> Ah, my bad, I thought you were actually proposing this as an actual
> patch. I now see that is my bad, I'd overlooked the RFC part.
No problem!
And of course adding tracing decreases the frequency and duration of
the multi_cpu_stop(). Re-running with shorter-duration triggering. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists