[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpomq_5H+wV5KkmBcDbLuQCg=7s3zp-HS4TSVgx5gqJ9f6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 21:04:46 +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, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: nohz problem with idle time on old hardware
On 9 April 2014 21:01, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>> 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?
Probably we will reach here only once per boot per cpu.
> Hmm, looking at the code, I see it probably should still do the check.
But still we need it for that one time. :)
--
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