[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130328073849.GA24433@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:38:49 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
Gilad Ben Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] nohz: Force boot CPU outside full dynticks range
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> The timekeeping job must be able to run early on boot
> because there may be some pre-SMP (and thus pre-initcalls )
> components that rely on it. The IO-APIC is one such users
> as it tests the timer health by watching jiffies progression.
Btw., while I agree that a conservative mode is probably wise for bootup,
that IO-APIC assumption could be fixed or even removed.
If the IO-APIC code wants to know whether an interrupt fired, it can take
a look at the kstat_irqs numbers?
Also, could we restrict the boot CPU's mode only during the early bootup
stage - i.e. until we are ready to execute user-space init?
Thaks,
Ingo
--
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