[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090427205601.GA5716@ioremap.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:56:02 +0400
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
davem@...emloft.net, dada1@...mosbay.com,
jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, paulus@...ba.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
jengelh@...ozas.de, r000n@...0n.net, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] v2 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods
Hi.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca) wrote:
> It might sound a bit simplistic, but... scheduling a high-priority
> workqueue on every CPUs would give you the guarantees you seem to need
> here. Or is the delay of letting the scheduler schedule a high-priority
> task a delay you are trying to avoid ?
I believe not the abstract (empty) task should be invoked, but a real
task which does the work. Presumably if we want to schedule a way
networking part to copy its counters, system should wake up the
appropriate userspace thread blocked in a grace-period waking path, so
effectively either RCU callback processing code or some registered
thread should be awakened.
Just a detail though.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists