lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.4.10pre7aa1
In article <20010911135735.T715@athlon.random> you wrote:
> 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

What kind of timer latencies are we talking about ? I would not be
too concerned if the RCU timers execute in 40ms instead of requested
10ms. The question is are there situations where they can get delayed
by minutes ?

Thanks
Dipankar
--
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> Project: http://lse.sourceforge.net
Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.032 / U:5.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site