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

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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?

I'd be happy for you to take them.

  Luis