[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230912122437.GA51582@lorien.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 08:24:37 -0400
From: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com,
raghavendra.kt@....com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sched: define TIF_ALLOW_RESCHED
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:26:06AM +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 10:04:17AM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
> >
> > How expensive would be always having PREEMPT_COUNT=y?
>
> Effectively I think that is true today. At the very least Debian and
> SuSE (I can't find a RHEL .config in a hurry but I would think they too)
> ship with PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y.
>
Yes, RHEL too.
Cheers,
Phil
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists