Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 11 Sep 2001 17:52:27 +0530 | From | Dipankar Sarma <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |