Re: RCU Kconfig help text

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

> > > > This leaves somebody who has a laptop wondering which choice is best for
> > > > a system with only one or two cores that has CONFIG_PREEMPT defined. One
> > > > choice says it scales down nicely, the other explicitly has a 'depends on
> > > > PREEMPT' attached to it...
> > > > 
> > > > (Yes, I realize in practice, the RCU sections on a laptop are probably usually
> > > > so short they don't matter in practice.  I finally concluded TREE_PREEMPT was
> > > > apparently a rename of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU and went with that since that was
> > > > working for me before...)
> > > 
> > > Good point -- I will add the "It also scales down nicely to smaller
> > > systems" to TREE_PREEMPT_RCU.
> > > 
> > > For -really- small systems, TINY_RCU will hopefully be there at some
> > > point, but it can only handle single-CPU systems.
> > 
> > If so, call it 'UP_RCU' or 'UNIPROCESSOR_RCU'?
> 
> "UP_RCU".  Cute!!!  ;-)
> 
> My hope is to drive the RCU selection directly from CONFIG_SMP and
> CONFIG_PREEMPT, so that the choice of RCU would be implicit (aside from
> things like tracing and fanout).
> 
> Seem reasonable, or would you expect anyone to want to hand-select
> the RCU implementation?

Seems reasonable.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html