Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:48:00 +0100 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation |
| |
Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Agreed. Perhaps a good change to make while introducing stall detection > to preemptable RCU -- there would then be three examples, which should > allow good generalization. > Two implementations. IMHO the current rcu-classic code should be dropped immediately when you add rcu-tree: rcu-classic is buggy, as far as I can see long-running interrupts on nohz cpus are not handled correctly. I don't think it makes sense to keep it in the kernel in parallel to rcu-tree.
I would propose that rcu-tree replaces rcu-classic. I'll continue to update rcu-state, I think that it will achieve lower latency than rcu-tree [average/max time between call_rcu() and destruction callback] and it doesn't have the irq disabled loop to find the missing cpus. If I find decent benchmarks where I can quantify the advantages, then I'll propose to merge rcu-state as a third implementation in addition to rcu-tree and rcu-preempt.
Paul: What do you think?
-- Manfred
| |