Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] xen: RCU: avoid busy waiting until the end of grace period.

From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>,
	Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>,
	Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] xen: RCU: avoid busy waiting until the end of grace period.
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 12:16:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFLBxZaYRFAQkEU2AANw4rm1ZkXD63NAuc6DYew5QO-kOmc6iA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <59A682CC02000078001755E4@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> Apart from this, are you OK with the patch?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Dario is on holiday, and I think it would be good to get this
>> functionality in sooner rather than later to shake out as many bugs as
>> possible.  Would you be willing to let the idle timer period be set with
>> a follow-up patch?
>
> Yes.
>
>> I'm happy to propagate the comment change to acpi_processor_idle() if
>> necessary.
>
> Propagate? So far I was of the opinion that the change had been
> intentionally dropped there, but was mistakenly left in place in
> mwait_idle(). Or if the comment was intended to be changed (in
> both places) I can't see how that would belong into this patch, as
> I think sched_tick_suspend() could have fiddled with timers even
> before. But in the end I don't care all that much if the comment
> adjustment gets done here or in a separate patch - my main wish
> really is for the two places to stay in sync.

OK -- I've checked in through patch 5 with that comment hunk removed.

Thanks,
 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel