[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1302191904560.22263@ionos>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:10:06 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linaro-dev >> Lists Linaro-dev" <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [resend] Timer broadcast question
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> I am working on identifying the different wakeup sources from the
> interrupts and I have a question regarding the timer broadcast.
>
> The broadcast timer is setup to the next event and that will wake up any
> idle cpu belonging to the "broadcast cpumask", right ?
>
> The cpu which has been woken up will look for each cpu the next-event
> and send an IPI to wake it up.
>
> Although, it is possible the sender of this IPI may not be concerned by
> the timer expiration and has been woken up just for sending the IPI, right ?
Correct.
> If this is correct, is it possible to setup the timer irq affinity to a
> cpu which will be concerned by the timer expiration ? so we prevent an
> unnecessary wake up for a cpu.
It is possible, but we never implemented it.
If we go there, we want to make that conditional on a property flag,
because some interrupt controllers especially on x86 only allow to
move the affinity from interrupt context, which is pointless.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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