lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RFC: revert 43fa5460fe60
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:19:06 -0800
Jörn Engel <joern@purestorage.com> wrote:

> Well, reverting was my first instinct, but for different reasons I think
> it is wrong. Simply reverting can result in the high priority thread
> moving from one cpu with a running process to a different cpu with a
> running process. In both cases you may trip over a mole, so nothing
> much is gained.
>
> But if you know that the destination cpu is idle, you can avoid any
> moles, give or take a small race window maybe. The moles are still
> present and you still need some debug tool to detect them and fix them
> over time. But as cpus increase over time, your chances of getting
> lucky in spite of bad kernel code also increase.
>
> Is that a worthwhile approach, at least for non PREEMPT?

I don't know. Could probably add it if CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set. Just
check if an idle CPU is available in that case and move it, as non
PREEMPT kernels will have long latencies anyway.

-- Steve


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-24 19:01    [W:0.049 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site