[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1365498784.2609.165.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:13:04 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...nel.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>,
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>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched: Update rq clock on nohz CPU before migrating
tasks
On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 18:45 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Because the sched_class::put_prev_task() callback of rt and fair
> classes are referring to the rq clock to update their runtime
> statistics. A CPU running in tickless mode may carry a stale value.
> We need to update it there.
I'm failing to see how tickless makes a difference here.. we should
never rely on a ->clock set at the last tick, that's wrong.
So either explain which/how clock update gets lost by tickless or make
it unconditional.
--
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