Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933167AbXA2GFe (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:05:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933166AbXA2GFe (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:05:34 -0500 Received: from mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.9]:44830 "EHLO mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933167AbXA2GFd (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:05:33 -0500 Message-ID: <45BD8EAA.7020804@kernel.org> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:05:30 -0800 From: Josh Triplett User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linuxtronix.de, dipankar@in.ibm.com, tytso@us.ibm.com, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, oleg@tv-sign.ru, twoerner.k@gmail.com, billh@gnuppy.monkey.org, nielsen.esben@googlemail.com, corbet@lwn.net Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -rt 2/2] RCU priority boosting additions to rcutorture References: <20070125021101.GA23428@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070125021444.GA22540@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070125022338.GB22540@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <45B86E88.6020209@kernel.org> <20070125180158.GC1705@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <45B8FFBB.4090307@kernel.org> <20070129021126.GA8417@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20070129021126.GA8417@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1669 Lines: 39 Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:06:35AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: >> Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:47:04AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: >>>> One major item: this new test feature really needs a new module parameter to >>>> enable or disable it. >>> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST is the parameter -- if not set, then no test. >>> This parameter is provided by the accompanying RCU-boost patch. >> It seems useful for rcutorture to use or not use the preempting thread >> independently of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST. That would bring you from two >> cases to four, and the two new cases both make sense: >> >> * CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST=n, but run rcutorture with the preempting thread. >> This configuration allows you to demonstrate the need for >> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST, by showing what happens when you need it and don't >> have it. >> >> * CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST=y, but run rcutorture without the preempting >> thread. This configuration allows you to test with rcutorture while running >> a *real* real-time workload rather than the simple preempting thread, or >> just test basic RCU functionality. >> >> A simple boolean module_param would work here. > > OK, am finally with you. See below for updated patch. Looks good to me. > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett - Josh Triplett - 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/