Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 31/86] rcu: further lower priority inrcu_yield()

[Mike Galbraith]

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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > 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)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/