On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally > supply RCU quiescent states, and never has. Last time I tried to add > cond_resched_rcu_qs() semantics to cond_resched(), I got told "no", > but perhaps it is time to try again. Well, you got told: "ARRGH my benchmark goes all regress", or something along those lines. Didn't we recently dig out those commits for some reason or other? Finding out what benchmark that was and running it against this patch would make sense. Also, I seem to have missed, why are we going through this again? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>