From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754023AbYIYHak (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:30:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751619AbYIYHac (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:30:32 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:39785 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751097AbYIYHac (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:30:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:29:15 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, manfred@colorfullife.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, schamp@sgi.com, niv@us.ibm.com, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, ego@in.ibm.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, peterz@infradead.org, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, andi@firstfloor.org, tglx@linutronix.com, Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] v6 scalable classic RCU implementation Message-ID: <20080925072915.GB20249@elte.hu> References: <20080821234318.GA1754@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080825000738.GA24339@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080830004935.GA28548@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080905152930.GA8124@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080915160221.GA9660@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080923235340.GA12166@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080923235340.GA12166@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Attached is an updated patch to Classic RCU that applies a hierarchy, > greatly reducing the contention on the top-level lock for large > machines. This passes 10-hour concurrent rcutorture and > online-offline testing on 128-CPU ppc64 without dynticks enabled, and > exposes some timekeeping bugs in presence of dynticks (exciting > working on a system where "sleep 1" hangs until interrupted...). i'm wondering about those timekeeping bugs. Do you have an idea what's it about and does it affect mainline? Ingo