Re: [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Extended quiescent state for adaptive nohz

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 12:31:00PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 02:07:09PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 09:06:22PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > 2012/6/4 Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 02:08:26PM +0200, fweisbec@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> Paul, Ingo,
> > > >>
> > > >> This is a rebase of the nohz cpusets RCU APIs on top of Paul's latest
> > > >> -rcu (rcu/core) branch.
> > > >>
> > > >> I have only built tested it yet, I need to do a full rebase of my
> > > >> tree to test it in practice. But I wanted to show you how it looks
> > > >> like first.
> > > >>
> > > >> I also wonder if we can set that to a tree somewhere. Ingo suggested
> > > >> to set up a tree on -tip to apply the uncontroversial part of nohz
> > > >> cpusets patches and iterate from there. I think it would accelerate
> > > >> everything if we start doing that.
> > > >
> > > > It would probably be best to put these two in the -rcu set in order to
> > > > avoid conflicts with possible further RCU_FAST_NO_HZ work.  I could
> > > > push this to -tip early, if that would help.
> > > 
> > > But then these APIs are going to be upstream on 3.6
> > > Is that ok for you even if they don't have any upstream user?
> > > We can ifdef it.
> > 
> > I figured on maintaining a separate rcu/idle topic branch that I would
> > merge locally for building and testing, but which I would not push
> > to rcu/next.  If Ingo agrees, I can push separately to -tip so that it
> > does not go upstream until you are ready, at which point I would merge
> > it into rcu/next.
> > 
> > Seem reasonable, or would something else work better?
> 
> Sounds very good!

Here you go:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/idle

							Thanx, Paul