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

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 02:07:09PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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?

Sounds very good!

Thanks.
--
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/