[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314627795.2816.61.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:23:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/32 RESEND] nohz: Drop useless ts->inidle check before
rearming the tick
On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 17:52 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> We only need to check if we have ts->stopped to ensure the tick
> was stopped and we want to re-enable it. Checking ts->inidle
> there is useless.
/me goes la-la-la-la...
It would so help poor little me who hasn't stared at this code in detail
for the past several days and is thus horridly confused if you'd expand
your reasoning somewhat.
--
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