Re: [PATCH 26/33] rcu: Don't keep the tick for RCU while in userspace

2013-01-07 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:08:26AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > If we are interrupting userspace, we don't need to keep > the tick for RCU: quiescent states don't need to be reported > because we soon run in userspace and local callbacks are handled > by the nocb threads. > > CHECKME: Do

[PATCH 26/33] rcu: Don't keep the tick for RCU while in userspace

2013-01-07 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
If we are interrupting userspace, we don't need to keep the tick for RCU: quiescent states don't need to be reported because we soon run in userspace and local callbacks are handled by the nocb threads. CHECKME: Do the nocb threads actually handle the global grace period completion for local

[PATCH 26/33] rcu: Don't keep the tick for RCU while in userspace

2013-01-07 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
If we are interrupting userspace, we don't need to keep the tick for RCU: quiescent states don't need to be reported because we soon run in userspace and local callbacks are handled by the nocb threads. CHECKME: Do the nocb threads actually handle the global grace period completion for local

Re: [PATCH 26/33] rcu: Don't keep the tick for RCU while in userspace

2013-01-07 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:08:26AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: If we are interrupting userspace, we don't need to keep the tick for RCU: quiescent states don't need to be reported because we soon run in userspace and local callbacks are handled by the nocb threads. CHECKME: Do the