[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140409113923.7dcaf183@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:39:23 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
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 Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:31:43 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> Hmm, looking at the code, I see it probably should still do the check.
>
> OK, nevermind ;-)
Reading even more of the code, now I'm totally confused :-)
When tick_setup_sched_timer() is called, if tick_nohz_enabled is set,
then we set tick_nohz_active.
This gets called by hrtimer_switch_to_hres(), and before that is
called, the tick_check_oneshot_changed() will never get to the
tick_nohz_switch_to_nohz() call.
Looks to me, the real answer is to nuke both the if statement *and* the
setting of the tick_nohz_active in that function. Both looks a bit
redundant to me.
-- 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