* Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > It may be too general for a naming. But I don't mind just selecting
> > CONFIG_RCU_NOCBS_ALL unconditionally. It's easily changed in the future if
> > anybody complains.
>
>
> I like the general nature of that config option since it removes the need to
> configure all the details. For an average user the current sets of options
> must
> look pretty complicated.
Yes.
It's not just complicated but also fragile and time consuming: as new kernel
options arrive you'd always have to be very careful with 'make oldconfig' and
make
sure you pick up the best options for latency.
Instead what we want is generally a high level knob that documents user
preference
and then the kernel config language can do the rest.
> > > Btw, if CONFIG_RCU_NOCBS_ALL isset, the rcu_nocbs= parameter is ignored,
> > > right? If you want to keep that direction and not override the Kconfig
> > > choice, may be warn the user about that if the boot parameter is passed?
>
> Ok. But all these complicated things would go away if we had an option
> CONFIG_LOWLATENCY and then everything would just follow the best setup
> possible given the hardware. Would remove a lot of guesswork and a lot of
> knobs.
In that sense CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is such a flag as well, which, like
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, tries to preconfigure the kernel correctly.
But we have to be careful not to use a too highlevel flag for that. If the user
meant 'low latency' to mean 'low latency IRQ execution' - then enabling
CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL might achieve the opposite, it adds overhead to the IRQ paths.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
