lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-27 20:49    [W:0.220 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site