Re: RCU question

[George Anzinger]

Manfred Spraul wrote:
> George Anzinger wrote:
>
> > The "normal" idle loop just looks at the need_resched flag and goes 
> > right back to the hlt,
>
>
> That's the problem: If a the tasklet does a wakeup then the reschedule 
> is delayed until the next interrupt. 

Not so.  On the interrupt that runs the tasklet, on the way out via entry.S, the 
need_resched flag is checked and acted on.  Thus the task switch is done prio to 
getting back to the hlt.

> Testing need_resched and executing 
> hlt must be atomic, but it isn't - NMIs break the atomicity.

Actually this is not required, especially if preemption is turned on.

> Not a big deal, except if someone implements a tickless kernel. 

Well, it is not tickless, but VST that I am working on :).  The notion is to 
turn off the ticks when in idle and there are not time events in the list.

I think
> we can ignore it for now [or was the thread started by someone who 
> want's to disable the hardware timer when the system is really idle?]

Yep, me!  But still, I keep a timer around to exit, it is just way more than a 
tick later (depending on what the next entry in the time list needs).
>

--
George Anzinger   george@xxxxxxxxxx
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/