linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] timer: Lazily wakup nohz CPU when adding new timer.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 23 Oct 2015 07:49:51 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timer: Lazily wakup nohz CPU when adding new timer.

On 22-10-15, 14:40, Yunhong Jiang wrote:
> A naive question is, why it's sure a tick will happen when the tickless 
> processor is in idle?

How do you get this impression? I don't think anyone has said that.

We are talking about deferrable timers, which by design are only
required if the target CPU is not-idle. If it is idle, then the timer
isn't required to be serviced until the CPU wakes up. And the CPU can
take whatever time it wants to wake up again.

> Is it because scheduler load balance is sure to send a 
> tick to the processor in future?

No. We aren't expecting the CPU to wake up any time soon. Just ignore
the deferrable timer.

-- 
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/