Re: [RFC v2 0/2] swait: add idle to make idle-hacks on kthreads explicit

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:48:18AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> While reviewing RCU's interruptible swaits I noticed signals were actually
> not expected. Paul explained that the reason signals are not expected is
> we use kthreads, which don't get signals, furthermore the code avoided the
> uninterruptible swaits as otherwise it would contribute to the system load
> average on idle, bumping it from 0 to 2 or 3 (depending on preemption).
> 
> Since this can be confusing its best to be explicit about the requirements and
> goals. This patch depends on the other killable swaits [0] recently proposed as
> well interms of context. Thee patch can however be tested independently if
> the hunk is addressed separately.
> 
> [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170614222017.14653-3-mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx

Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Are you looking to push these or were you wanting me to?

							Thanx, Paul

> Luis R. Rodriguez (2):
>   swait: add idle variants which don't contribute to load average
>   rcu: use idle versions of swait to make idle-hack clear
> 
>  include/linux/swait.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/rcu/tree.c     |  4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.11.0
>