Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/4] Programmatic nestable expedited grace periods
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Sat Feb 21 2015 - 11:09:59 EST
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:45:39AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 2/20/2015 9:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:32:39AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>there's a few others as well that I'm chasing down...
> >>.. but the flip side, prior to running ring 3 code, why NOT do fast expedites?
> >So my objections are twofold:
> > - I object to fast expedites in principle; they spray IPIs across the
> > system, so ideally we'd not have them at all, therefore also not at
> > boot.
> > Because as soon as the option exists, people will use it for other
> > things too.
> the option exists today in sysfs and kernel parameter...
Yeah, Paul and me have been having this argument for a while now ;-)
> >And esp. in bootup code you can special case a lot of stuff; there's
> >limited concurrency esp. because userspace it not there yet. So we might
> >not actually need those sync calls.
> yeah I am going down that angle as well absolutely.
> but there are cases that may well be legit (or are 5 function calls deep into common code)
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/