Re: [git pull for -mm] CPU isolation extensions (updated2)

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, <torvalds@...>, LKML <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Paul Jackson <pj@...>, <gregkh@...>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...>
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 2:59 pm

On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 20:10 -0800, Max Krasnyansky wrote:

I'm wondering why you insist on offering a git tree that bypasses the
regular maintainers. Why not post the patches and walk the normal route?

To me this feels rather aggressive, which makes me feel less inclined to
look at it.


You forgot Oleg, he does a lot of the workqueue work.

I'm worried by your approach to never start any workqueue on these cpus.
Like you said, it breaks Oprofile and others who depend on cpu local
workqueues being present.

Under normal circumstances these workqueues will not do any work,
someone needs to provide work for them. That is, workqueues are passive.

So I think your approach is the wrong way about. Instead of taking the
workqueue away, take away those that generate the work.


Ingo (and Thomas) do the genirq bits

The IRQ isolation in concept isn't wrong. But it seems to me that
arch/x86/kernel/genapic_flat_64.c isn't the best place to do this.
It just considers one architecture, if you do this, please make it work
across all.


I too am thinking this is very wrong, stop machine is used by a lot of
things, including those that modify the kernel code. You really need to
replace all stop machine users with a more robust solution before you
can do this.


Not having seen the latest patches; I'm still not fond of the isolation
interface.


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[git pull for -mm] CPU isolation extensions (updated2), Max Krasnyansky, (Tue Feb 12, 12:10 am)
Re: [git pull for -mm] CPU isolation extensions (updated2), Peter Zijlstra, (Tue Feb 12, 2:59 pm)
Re: [git pull for -mm] CPU isolation extensions (updated2), Steven Rostedt, (Wed Feb 13, 1:19 am)
Re: [git pull for -mm] CPU isolation extensions (updated2), Max Krasnyansky, (Wed Feb 13, 1:47 am)
Re: [git pull for -mm] CPU isolation extensions (updated2), Max Krasnyansky, (Tue Feb 12, 11:59 pm)
Re: [git pull for -mm] CPU isolation extensions (updated2), Max Krasnyansky, (Tue Feb 12, 11:32 pm)
Re: [git pull for -mm] CPU isolation extensions (updated2), Max Krasnyansky, (Wed Feb 13, 2:06 am)
Re: [git pull for -mm] CPU isolation extensions (updated2), Max Krasnyansky, (Wed Feb 13, 1:11 pm)