Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262080AbUC1R2v (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:28:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262132AbUC1R2v (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:28:51 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:64946 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262080AbUC1R2t (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:28:49 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:28:41 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: dipankar@in.ibm.com Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Arjan van de Ven , Robert Love , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] RCU for low latency (experimental) In-Reply-To: <20040328172036.GH5648@in.ibm.com> References: <20040323124002.GH3676@in.ibm.com> <20040323125044.GL22639@dualathlon.random> <20040324172657.GA1303@us.ibm.com> <20040324175142.GW2065@dualathlon.random> <20040324213914.GD4539@in.ibm.com> <20040324225326.GH2065@dualathlon.random> <20040324231145.GB12035@in.ibm.com> <20040324233430.GJ2065@dualathlon.random> <20040324234643.GD12035@in.ibm.com> <20040328172036.GH5648@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.6 MULE XEmacs/21.4 (patch 13) (Rational FORTRAN) (i386-suse-linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1271 Lines: 38 At Sun, 28 Mar 2004 22:50:36 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 06:53:47PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > it seems count is never incremented in your patch... > > or am i missing something? > > I messed it up when I forward ported the throttle-rcu.patch > from 2.6.0+lots-of-instrumentation to 2.6.4-vanilla in order > to publish in lkml. The original patch did this - thans for the patch. i expected the similar fix :) > > anyway, i confirmed that with the original krcud patch the latency > > with dcache flood can be eliminated. > > Does the throttle-rcu patch also help eliminate dcache flood ? You > can try by just changing count >= rcumaxbatch to ++count > rcumaxbatch. i'll try it later. > > for the non-preemptive case, rcu_bh_callback_limit() should return > > bhlimit always, though. otherwise cond_resched() isn't called in the > > callback loop properly. > > Yes, I think we should consider using limiting even in the non-preemptive > case. you mean preemptive case? Takashi - 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/