lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] latency tracer, 2.6.15-rc7
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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-03 14:34    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site