Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 31/86] rcu: further lower priority in rcu_yield() | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Mon, 02 May 2011 11:33:06 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 01:11 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 07:51:04PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 06:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > From: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org> > > > > > > Although rcu_yield() dropped from real-time to normal priority, there > > > is always the possibility that the competing tasks have been niced. > > > So nice to 19 in rcu_yield() to help ensure that other tasks have a > > > better chance of running. > > > > But.. that just prolongs the pain of overhead you _have_ to eat, no? In > > a brief surge, fine, you can spread the cost out.. but how do you know > > when it's ok to yield? > > I modeled this code on the existing code in ksoftirqd. But yes, this is > a heuristic. I do believe that it is quite robust, but time will tell.
(It probably is fine, but when I see 'yield', alarms and sirens go off)
| |