lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Question about sched_setaffinity()
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 05:20:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 03:05:39AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > > The fix is straightforward. I just added "rcutorture.shuffle_interval=0"
> > > > > to the TRIVIAL.boot file, which stops rcutorture from shuffling its
> > > > > kthreads around.
> > > >
> > > > I added the option to the file and I didn't reproduce the issue.
> > >
> > > Thank you! May I add your Tested-by?
> >
> > Please feel free to do so. But it may be worth to squash "the commits"
> > (and adjust the changelogs accordingly). And you might want to remove
> > some of those debug checks/prints?
>
> Revert/remove a number of the commits, but yes. ;-)
>
> And remove the extra loop, but leave the single WARN_ON() complaining
> about being on the wrong CPU.

The other "toy" implementation I noticed is based on reader/writer locking.

Would you see value in having that as an additional rcu torture type?

thanks,

- Joel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-13 17:37    [W:0.117 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site