linux-kernel - Re: [Query]: tick-sched: why don't we stop tick when we are running idle task?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 14 Apr 2014 15:21:24 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Preeti Murthy <preeti.lkml@...il.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Query]: tick-sched: why don't we stop tick when we are running
 idle task?

On 14 April 2014 15:18, Preeti Murthy <preeti.lkml@...il.com> wrote:
> I am not too sure about the complexity or the worthiness of this patch but
> just wanted to add that care must be taken to migrate the tick_sched_timer
> of all the remote CPUs off a hotplugged out CPU if the latter was keeping
> their time thus far. In the normal scenario I am guessing the tick_sched_timer
> dies along with the hotplugged out CPU since there is no need for it any more.

Agreed. Lets see if there is anybody in favor of this work as it is
very important
for some real time use cases we have. Like running data plane threads on
isolated CPUs.
--
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/