On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:40:24AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:30:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Sure, we all dislike IPIs, but I'm thinking this half-way point is > > sensible, no point in issuing user visible annoyance if indeed we can > > prod things back to life, no? > > > > Only if we utterly fail to make it respond should we bug the user with > > our failure.. > > Sold! ;-) > > I will put together a patch later today. > > My intent is to hold off on the "upgrade cond_resched()" patch, one > step at a time. Longer term, I do very much like the idea of having > cond_resched() do both scheduling and RCU quiescent states, assuming > that this avoids performance pitfalls. Well, with the above change cond_resched() is already sufficient, no? In fact, by doing the IPI thing we get the entire cond_resched*() family, and we could add the should_resched() guard to cond_resched_rcu(). -- 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>