[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140212181517.GE27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:15:17 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Too many rescheduling interrupts (still!)
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:46:39PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Ok but if the target is idle, dynticks and not polling, we don't have the choice
> but to send an IPI, right? I'm talking about this kind of case.
Yes; but Andy doesn't seem concerned with such hardware (!x86).
Anything x86 (except ancient stuff) is effectively polling and wakes up
from the TIF_NEED_RESCHED write.
--
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