[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpok8e9MoWFeNquMreRR8dbBP-_9CDP7=xdOwAwWv87VZAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 21:26:51 +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 21:09, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 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.
correct.
> 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.
If hrtimer_switch_to_hres() is called or HRES is enabled, we will
never ever call tick_nohz_switch_to_nohz().
> 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.
When HRES isn't enabled and NOHZ isn't enabled as well, in that
case we should stick to the periodic code from tick-common.c and
the oneshot options of tick_nohz_switch_to_nohz() or
hrtimer_switch_to_hres() shouldn't be used. And so, we still need
those checks, as per my understanding. :)
Lets see what others have for this discussion :)
--
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