On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:35:29AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:10:38 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180227153646.gd3...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
> >
> > That thread using cond_resched_task_rcu_qs() seems like a _lot_ better
> > than having cond_resched() semantics change depending on random
> > !scheduler config parameters.
>
> Yeah, I agree. Not sure why Paul didn't push it. Maybe because I never
> replied to that final email and he forgot?
>
> Paul?
Yeah, I have been a bit event-driven of late. So the thought is to keep
cond_resched() as-is and use cond_resched_task_rcu_qs(), that is after
the rename, for the stress tests instead of the current cond_resched().
Or did I lose the thread?
Thanx, paul
