On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 05:50:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 07:54:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > Right; so clearly we're not understanding what's happening. That seems > > > like a requirement for actually doing a patch. > > > > Almost but not quite. It is a requirement for a patch *that* *is* > > *supposed* *to* *be* *a* *fix*. If you are trying to prohibit me from > > writing experimental patches, please feel free to take a long walk on > > a short pier. > > > > Understood??? > > Ah, my bad, I thought you were actually proposing this as an actual > patch. I now see that is my bad, I'd overlooked the RFC part. No problem! And of course adding tracing decreases the frequency and duration of the multi_cpu_stop(). Re-running with shorter-duration triggering. ;-) Thanx, Paul
