Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:57:35 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.10pre7aa1 |
| |
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 05:23:01PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > In article <20010911131238.N715@athlon.random> you wrote: > > many thanks. At the moment my biggest concern is about the need of > > call_rcu not to be starved by RT threads (keventd can be starved so then > > it won't matter if krcud is RT because we won't start using it). > > > Andrea > > I think we can avoid keventd altogether by using a periodic timer (say 10ms) > to check for completion of an RC update. The timer may be active > only if only if there is any RCU going on in the system - that way > we still don't have any impact on the rest of the kernel.
the timer can a have bigger latency than keventd calling wait_for_rcu so it should be a loss in a stright bench with light load, but OTOH we only care about getting those callbacks executed eventually and the advantage I can see is that the timer cannot get starved.
Andrea - 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/
|  |