[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200711250029.55461.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:29:54 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: nohz and strange sleep latencies
On Saturday, 24 of November 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > but perhaps somehow we miss this fact and fail to turn off the lapic
> > > > clockevents drivers?
> > >
> > > Ok, I guess I'm lost. If I offline second CPU, I immediately get
> > > 1000Hz timer tick... is that expected?
> >
> > Hmm. No. I have no idea why this is happening.
> >
> > 34196 total events, 55.083 events/sec
> > echo 0 >/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
> > 36073 total events, 54.679 events/sec
>
> Digging into process_32|64.c...
>
> 64:
> while (1) {
> while (!need_resched()) {
> void (*idle)(void);
>
> if (__get_cpu_var(cpu_idle_state))
> __get_cpu_var(cpu_idle_state) = 0;
>
> tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick();
>
> 32:
> while (1) {
> tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick();
> while (!need_resched()) {
> void (*idle)(void);
>
> if (__get_cpu_var(cpu_idle_state))
> __get_cpu_var(cpu_idle_state) = 0;
>
> ...eek? Which one is wrong?
Hm, it looks like you should have quoted more lines ...
In the second case (32), the tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() seems to be
redundant, so I bet it's this one.
Greetings,
Rafael
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists