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
