On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:53:12AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > I like this approach *far* better. This is the kind of thing I had in > > > mind when I suggested using the fqs machinery: remove the poll entirely > > > and just thwack a CPU if it takes too long without a quiescent state. > > > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> > > > > Glad you like it. Not a fan of the IPI myself, but then again if you > > are spending that must time looping in the kernel, an extra IPI is the > > least of your problems. > > Good. The IPI is only used when actually necessary. The code inserted > was always there and always executed although rarely needed.
Interesting. I actually proposed this approach several times in the earlier thread, but to deafing silence: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/18/836, https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/17/793, and https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/20/479. I guess this further validates interpreting silence as assent. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
