[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] RCU for low latency (experimental)
    On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:36:29AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 12:02:08PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > If the "nice" value does not matter, this seems reasonable, at least for
    > > some value of 10. ;-)
    > the nice value should no matter for this.

    I agree that there would not likely be any differences except in
    corner-case OOM situations, and that we would probably not want
    to rely on such differences in any case.

    > btw, (just to avoid misunderstanding) the number 10 is

    Ah! Thank you for the clarification -- I thought you were
    talking about the number of RCU callbacks to be executed in each
    rcu_do_batch() invocation. And, yes, after MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART,
    ksoftirqd does re-enable preemption.

    Thanx, Paul
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.018 / U:17.512 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site