[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190809202920.GE255533@google.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 16:29:20 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>,
max.byungchul.park@...il.com, kernel-team@...roid.com,
kernel-team@....com, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 1/2] rcu/tree: Add basic support for kfree_rcu
batching
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 04:22:26PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > o With any of the above, invoke rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() along
> > > > with cond_resched() in your kfree_rcu() loop. This simulates
> > > > a trip to userspace for nohz_full CPUs, so if this helps for
> > > > non-nohz_full CPUs, adjustments to the kernel might be called for.
>
> I did not try this yet. But I am thinking why would this help in nohz_idle
> case? In nohz_idle we already have the tick active when CPU is idle. I guess
> it is because there may be a long time that elapses before
> rcu_data.rcu_need_heavy_qs == true ?
Sorry, here I meant 'tick active when CPU is not idle'.
thanks,
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists