Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation

[Manfred Spraul]

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Agreed.  Perhaps a good change to make while introducing stall detection
> to preemptable RCU -- there would then be three examples, which should
> allow good generalization.
>   
Two implementations. IMHO the current rcu-classic code should be dropped 
immediately when you add rcu-tree:
rcu-classic is buggy, as far as I can see long-running interrupts on 
nohz cpus are not handled correctly. I don't think it makes sense to 
keep it in the kernel in parallel to rcu-tree.

I would propose that rcu-tree replaces rcu-classic.
I'll continue to update rcu-state, I think that it will achieve lower 
latency than rcu-tree [average/max time between call_rcu() and 
destruction callback] and it doesn't have the irq disabled loop to find 
the missing cpus.
If I find decent benchmarks where I can quantify the advantages, then 
I'll propose to merge rcu-state as a third implementation in addition to 
rcu-tree and rcu-preempt.

Paul: What do you think?

--
   Manfred


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