On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:57:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 14:35 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > But yes, RCU was a lot simpler before people started worrying about
> > its energy efficiency. ;-)
>
> Tell them to buy bigger batteries.
If nuclear batteries are g
On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 14:35 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But yes, RCU was a lot simpler before people started worrying about
> its energy efficiency. ;-)
Tell them to buy bigger batteries.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:12:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney"
> >
> > The can_stop_idle_tick() function complains if a softirq vector is
> > raised too late in the idle-entry process, presumably in order t
On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney"
>
> The can_stop_idle_tick() function complains if a softirq vector is
> raised too late in the idle-entry process, presumably in order to
> prevent dangling softirq invocations from being delayed across the
> f
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:56:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney"
>
> The can_stop_idle_tick() function complains if a softirq vector is
> raised too late in the idle-entry process, presumably in order to
> prevent dangling softirq invocations from being delayed across
From: "Paul E. McKenney"
The can_stop_idle_tick() function complains if a softirq vector is
raised too late in the idle-entry process, presumably in order to
prevent dangling softirq invocations from being delayed across the
full idle period, which might be indefinitely long -- and if softirq
was
6 matches
Mail list logo
