Re: 2.4.10pre7aa1

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 05:23:01PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> In article <20010911131238.N715@athlon.random> you wrote:
> > many thanks. At the moment my biggest concern is about the need of
> > call_rcu not to be starved by RT threads (keventd can be starved so then
> > it won't matter if krcud is RT because we won't start using it).
> 
> > Andrea
> 
> I think we can avoid keventd altogether by using a periodic timer (say 10ms)
> to check for completion of an RC update. The timer may be active
> only if only if there is any RCU going on in the system - that way
> we still don't have any impact on the rest of the kernel.

the timer can a have bigger latency than keventd calling wait_for_rcu
so it should be a loss in a stright bench with light load, but OTOH we
only care about getting those callbacks executed eventually and the
advantage I can see is that the timer cannot get starved.

Andrea