Re: [RFC&PATCH] Alternative RCU implementation

From: Jim Houston (jim.houston_at_comcast.net)
Date: 09/03/04

  • Next message: David Masover: "Re: The argument for fs assistance in handling archives" 
    To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Date:	02 Sep 2004 21:19:17 -0400

    On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 17:20, Manfred Spraul wrote:
    > Jim Houston wrote:
    >
    > >We add the following /proc files:
    > >/proc/shield/ltmrs
    > > Setting a bit limits the use of local timers on the
    > > corresponding cpu.
    > >
    > How do you handle schedule_delayed_work_on()?
    > slab uses it to drain the per-cpu caches. It's not fatal if a cpu
    > doesn't drain it's caches (just some wasted memory), but it should be
    > documented.

    Hi Manfred,

    The timer shielding migrates most of the timers to non-shielded cpus
    but does keep track of timers queued with add_timer_on(). These
    are polled periodically from a non-shielded cpu, and an inter-processsor
    interrupt is used to force the shielded cpu to handle their expiry.

    Jim Houston - Concurrent Computer Corp.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: David Masover: "Re: The argument for fs assistance in handling archives"

    Relevant Pages