[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314627792.2816.60.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:23:12 +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 02/32 RESEND] nohz: Drop ts->idle_active
On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 17:51 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> ts->idle_active is used to know if we want to account the idle sleep
> time. But ts->inidle is enough to check that.
>
While possibly true, its not immediately obvious and no hints are
supplied. For example: tick_check_nohz() would disable ->idle_active..
where is this mirrored in the ->inidle state.
Also, tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() has this comment:
/*
* Set ts->inidle unconditionally. Even if the system did not
* switch to NOHZ mode the cpu frequency governers rely on the
* update of the idle time accounting in tick_nohz_start_idle().
*/
ts->inidle = 1;
Which suggest the ->inidle state doesn't accurately reflect things.
This is all rather hairy code, such changes really want more in terms of
explanation.
--
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