[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1216379283.28405.19.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:08:03 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: eric miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jack Ren <jack.ren@...vell.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: do not stop ticks when cpu is not idle
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 12:54 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> > --- a/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -4446,7 +4446,8 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
> > rq->nr_switches++;
> > rq->curr = next;
> > ++*switch_count;
> > -
> > + if (rq->curr != rq->idle)
> > + tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick();
> > context_switch(rq, prev, next); /* unlocks the rq */
>
> hm, one problem i can see is lock dependencies. This code is executed
> with the rq lock while tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick() takes hr locks =>
> not good. So i havent applied this just yet - this needs to be solved
> differently.
Actually, that should work these days...
Also, I assume Eric actually tested this with lockdep enabled (right,
Eric?) and that'll shout - or rather, lockup hard in this case - if you
got it wrong.
--
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