[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohponY+4y8G875wy4GsO1hTqERc7-hYKY6uQvLn28+32VxVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:50:59 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Matthew Whitehead <tedheadster@...il.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mwhitehe@...hat.com
Subject: Re: nohz problem with idle time on old hardware
On 9 April 2014 20:01, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> Ouch! You are correct, this part of the patch makes no sense. That's
> what I get for reviewing a patch and not looking at all the code around
> the changes. (another kernel developer hangs head in shame :-( )
>
> I think that if statement should be nuked.
Hmm, my opinion differs here :)
If we completely remove this statement, we will run
tick_nohz_switch_to_nohz() even if nohz is not enabled. And check for
enabled must stay.
--
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