lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT RFC PULL rcu/urgent] Prevent Kconfig from asking pointless questions
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:15:04 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:40:49PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:09:03AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > The sysfs knob might be nice, but as far as I know nobody has been
> > > complaining about it.
> > >
> > > Besides, we already have the rcutree.kthread_prio= kernel-boot parameter.
> > > So how about if the Kconfig parameter selects either SCHED_OTHER
> > > (the default) or SCHED_FIFO:1, and then the boot parameter can be used
> > > to select other values.
> >
> > Hmm, what priority is this for anyway. To change the priority of the boost
> > value at run time, do we only need to change the priority of the rcub threads?
> >
> > And the priority of the other rcu threads can change as well with a simple
> > chrt?
> >
> > If that's the case, then we don't need a sysctl knob at all.
>
> For the grace-period kthreads and the boost kthread, that is the case.
> It is also the case for the per-CPU kthreads that invoke RCU callbacks
> for the non-offloaded RCU_BOOST configuration (and that replace all
> softirq RCU work in -rt).
>
> So, should I just ditch all of the priority-setting within RCU and tell
> users to just use chrt?

Looks to me like all we need to do is tell people if they need a boost
higher than the compiled in default (RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO), then chrt the
priority of the rcub thread to the desired priority.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-21 00:21    [W:0.066 / U:2.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site