On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 07:09:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:47:41 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
>
> > > It is much lighter weight than a timer setup.
> >
> > How much lighter weight? In other words, what fraction of the
> > timers have to avoid being cancel
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:47:41 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> > It is much lighter weight than a timer setup.
>
> How much lighter weight? In other words, what fraction of the
> timers have to avoid being cancelled for irq_work to break even?
No idea. I guess that would be a nice academic
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 05:18:01PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:05:40 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 06:17:10PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:18:14 -0700
> > > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:05:40 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 06:17:10PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:18:14 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:12:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 24 Ju
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 06:17:10PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:18:14 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:12:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:44:31 -0700
> > > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> > >
> > > > The han
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:18:14 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:12:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:44:31 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> >
> > > The handling of RCU's no-CBs CPUs has a maintenance headache, namely
> > > that if call
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:12:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:44:31 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > The handling of RCU's no-CBs CPUs has a maintenance headache, namely
> > that if call_rcu() is invoked with interrupts disabled, the rcuo kthread
> > wakeup must
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:44:31 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> The handling of RCU's no-CBs CPUs has a maintenance headache, namely
> that if call_rcu() is invoked with interrupts disabled, the rcuo kthread
> wakeup must be defered to a point where we can be sure that scheduler
> locks are not he
The handling of RCU's no-CBs CPUs has a maintenance headache, namely
that if call_rcu() is invoked with interrupts disabled, the rcuo kthread
wakeup must be defered to a point where we can be sure that scheduler
locks are not held. Of course, there are a lot of code paths leading
from an interrupt
9 matches
Mail list logo