[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130627094226.GP28407@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:42:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC nohz_full 0/8] Provide infrastructure for full-system
idle
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:24:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Just to make sure I understand... You are saying that it is OK for
> NO_HZ_FULL to shut down timekeeping if all CPUs are idle, even if some
> of them are taking NMIs from time to time, right?
Yeah.. its what we currently do and I don't see any reason to have
NO_HZ_FULL behave differently there.
--
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