Quoting Chris Wilson (2021-02-02 21:24:16)
> Quoting Chris Wilson (2021-02-02 21:14:35)
> > Quoting Chris Wilson (2021-02-02 17:43:53)
> > > Let's see how horrible it is to cycle elements on defer. (Curse the
> > > irqlock pollution.)
> >
> > While that did work. I do not have a good idea on how
Quoting Chris Wilson (2021-02-02 21:14:35)
> Quoting Chris Wilson (2021-02-02 17:43:53)
> > Let's see how horrible it is to cycle elements on defer. (Curse the
> > irqlock pollution.)
>
> While that did work. I do not have a good idea on how to do list
> rotation on an RCU list. I can see that it
Quoting Chris Wilson (2021-02-02 17:43:53)
> Let's see how horrible it is to cycle elements on defer. (Curse the
> irqlock pollution.)
While that did work. I do not have a good idea on how to do list
rotation on an RCU list. I can see that it must require a pair of
synchronize_rcu, and that
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2021-02-02 16:52:18)
>
> On 02/02/2021 15:14, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > live_timeslice_rewind assumes a particular traversal and reordering
> > after the first timeslice yield. However, the outcome can be either
> > (A1, A2, B1) or (A1, B2, A2) depending on the path taken
On 02/02/2021 15:14, Chris Wilson wrote:
live_timeslice_rewind assumes a particular traversal and reordering
after the first timeslice yield. However, the outcome can be either
(A1, A2, B1) or (A1, B2, A2) depending on the path taken through the
dependency graph. So if we do not get the
live_timeslice_rewind assumes a particular traversal and reordering
after the first timeslice yield. However, the outcome can be either
(A1, A2, B1) or (A1, B2, A2) depending on the path taken through the
dependency graph. So if we do not get the outcome we need at first, give
it a priority kick
