Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262711AbUCYAss (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:48:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262589AbUCYAqE (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:46:04 -0500 Received: from bi01p1.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.142]:57576 "EHLO linux.local") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262711AbUCYAnH (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:43:07 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:43:02 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Dipankar Sarma , Arjan van de Ven , tiwai@suse.de, Robert Love , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] RCU for low latency (experimental) Message-ID: <20040325004302.GF1301@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@us.ibm.com References: <20040323101755.GC3676@in.ibm.com> <1080038105.5296.8.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <20040323123105.GI22639@dualathlon.random> <20040323124002.GH3676@in.ibm.com> <20040323125044.GL22639@dualathlon.random> <20040324172657.GA1303@us.ibm.com> <20040324175142.GW2065@dualathlon.random> <20040324200208.GA1301@us.ibm.com> <20040324233629.GK2065@dualathlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040324233629.GK2065@dualathlon.random> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1027 Lines: 25 On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:36:29AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 12:02:08PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > If the "nice" value does not matter, this seems reasonable, at least for > > some value of 10. ;-) > > the nice value should no matter for this. I agree that there would not likely be any differences except in corner-case OOM situations, and that we would probably not want to rely on such differences in any case. > btw, (just to avoid misunderstanding) the number 10 is > MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART. Ah! Thank you for the clarification -- I thought you were talking about the number of RCU callbacks to be executed in each rcu_do_batch() invocation. And, yes, after MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART, ksoftirqd does re-enable preemption. Thanx, Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/