Re: [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Extended quiescent state for adaptive nohz

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 09:06:22PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2012/6/4 Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 02:08:26PM +0200, fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Paul, Ingo,
> >>
> >> This is a rebase of the nohz cpusets RCU APIs on top of Paul's latest
> >> -rcu (rcu/core) branch.
> >>
> >> I have only built tested it yet, I need to do a full rebase of my
> >> tree to test it in practice. But I wanted to show you how it looks
> >> like first.
> >>
> >> I also wonder if we can set that to a tree somewhere. Ingo suggested
> >> to set up a tree on -tip to apply the uncontroversial part of nohz
> >> cpusets patches and iterate from there. I think it would accelerate
> >> everything if we start doing that.
> >
> > It would probably be best to put these two in the -rcu set in order to
> > avoid conflicts with possible further RCU_FAST_NO_HZ work.  I could
> > push this to -tip early, if that would help.
> 
> But then these APIs are going to be upstream on 3.6
> Is that ok for you even if they don't have any upstream user?
> We can ifdef it.

I figured on maintaining a separate rcu/idle topic branch that I would
merge locally for building and testing, but which I would not push
to rcu/next.  If Ingo agrees, I can push separately to -tip so that it
does not go upstream until you are ready, at which point I would merge
it into rcu/next.

Seem reasonable, or would something else work better?

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/