On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:12:15AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:49:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Because idle-task code may need to be patched, RCU-tasks need to wait
> > for idle tasks to schedule. This commit therefore detects this case
> > via context switch. Block CPU hotplug during this time to avoid sending
> > IPIs to offline CPUs.
> >
> > Note that checking for changes in the dyntick-idle counters is tempting,
> > but wrong. The reason that it is wrong is that a interrupt or NMI can
> > increment these counters without necessarily allowing the idle tasks to
> > make any forward progress.
>
> I'm going to NAK this.. with that rcu_idle patch I send there's
> typically only a single idle function thats out of bounds and if its
> more it can be made that with a bit of tlc to the cpuidle driver in
> question.
>
> This needs _FAR_ more justification than a maybe and a want.
Peter, your patch might be a good start, but I didn't see any reaction
from Steven or Masami and it did only x86.
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/
