Re: [patch] latency tracer, 2.6.15-rc7

[David Lang]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Dipankar Sarma wrote:

> I do agree that the two layers of batching really makes things
> subtle. I think the best we can do is to figure out some way of
> automatic throttling in RCU and forced quiescent state under extreme
> conditions. That way we will have less dependency on softirq
> throttling.

would it make sense to have the RCU subsystems with a threshold so that 
when more then X items are outstanding they trigger a premption of all 
other CPU's ASAP (forceing the scheduling break needed to make progress on 
clearing RCU)? This wouldn't work in all cases, but it could significantly 
reduce the problem situations.

David Lang

--
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
 -- C.A.R. Hoare

-
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/