Re: [PATCH] rcu: Eliminate softirq processing from rcutree

[Mike Galbraith]

On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 18:14 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: 
> * Mike Galbraith | 2013-12-25 18:37:37 [+0100]:
> 
> >On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 23:55 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: 
> >> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 04:07:34AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> >Having sufficiently recovered from turkey overdose to be able to slither
> >upstairs (bump bump bump) to check on the box, commenting..
> >
> ># timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch
> ># rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-trylock.patch
> >
> >..those two out does seem to have stabilized the thing.
> 
> timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch is on its way out.
> 
> rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-trylock.patch confues me.
> Didn't you report once that your box deadlocks without this patch? Now
> your 64way box on the other hand does not work with it?

If 'do not raise' is applied, 'use a trylock' won't save you.  If 'do
not raise' is not applied, _and_ you wisely do not try to turn on very
expensive nohz_full, things work fine without 'use a trylock'.

-Mike

--
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/