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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Josh Triplett - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
