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/[email protected]
Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> 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 >
