[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110906003547.GB28205@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 02:35:50 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
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>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/32] nohz: Move idle ticks stats tracking out of nohz
handlers
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:28:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 17:52 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Idle ticks time tracking is merged into nohz stop/restart
> > handlers. Pull it out into idle entry/exit handlers instead,
> > so that nohz APIs is more idle independant.
>
> Are you trying to say:
>
> Currently idle time tracking is part of the nohz state tracking,
> separate this so that we can disable the tick while we're non-idle?
Right.
>
> If so, how does idle time tracking work on a !NOHZ kernel, surely such
> things can be idle too..
In that case the tick calls account_process_tick() which delegates
to account_idle_time() if we are idle on tick.
That's also used in NOHZ kernels in fact.
In every tick we call account_process_tick(), but when the tick is stopped
we save its value in ts->idle_jiffies and when it is restarted we account
jiffies - ts->idle_jiffies.
--
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