[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140409112950.7be9f8ac@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:29:50 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.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 Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:50:59 +0530
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> 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.
Do we? This is only called by tick_check_oneshot_change() which has the
following:
int tick_check_oneshot_change(int allow_nohz)
{
struct tick_sched *ts = &__get_cpu_var(tick_cpu_sched);
if (!test_and_clear_bit(0, &ts->check_clocks))
return 0;
if (ts->nohz_mode != NOHZ_MODE_INACTIVE)
return 0;
if (!timekeeping_valid_for_hres() || !tick_is_oneshot_available())
return 0;
if (!allow_nohz)
return 1;
tick_nohz_switch_to_nohz();
return 0;
}
How often does it make it to that last check?
-- Steve
--
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