On 2018-11-08 09:35:25 [-0800], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> I agree that tglx's patch is needed for 4.19 and earlier. Just not for
> 4.20 and later.
>
> Or am I still missing your point?
nope, I think we are good.
> Thanx, Paul
Sebastian
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 06:15:16PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-11-08 08:42:47 [-0800], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 05:02:57PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2018-11-01 16:18:04 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > The need for this
On 2018-11-08 08:42:47 [-0800], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 05:02:57PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2018-11-01 16:18:04 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The need for this goes away as of the current merge window because
> > > RCU-bh has gone away. (Asi
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 05:02:57PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-11-01 16:18:04 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The need for this goes away as of the current merge window because
> > RCU-bh has gone away. (Aside from still being able to do things
> > like rcu_read_lock_bh(
On 2018-11-01 16:18:04 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The need for this goes away as of the current merge window because
> RCU-bh has gone away. (Aside from still being able to do things
> like rcu_read_lock_bh() as a documentation device.)
So in -RT rcu_read_lock_bh() does
{ local_bh_disabl
> The Linux kernel has long RCU-bh read-side critical sections that
> intolerably increase scheduling latency under mainline's RCU-bh rules,
> which include RCU-bh read-side critical sections being non-preemptible.
> This patch therefore arranges for RCU-bh to be implemented in terms of
> RCU-preem
6 matches
Mail list logo
