| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140414120600.GJ11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:06:00 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> Cc: 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> Subject: Re: [Query]: tick-sched: why don't we stop tick when we are running idle task? On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 05:22:30PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 14 April 2014 17:17, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > What causes this tick? I was under the impression that once there's a > > single task (not doing any syscalls) and the above issues are sorted, no > > more tick would happen. > > This is what Frederic told me earlier: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/13/238 That's a bit of a non-answer. I'm fairly sure its not a gazillion issues, since the actual scheduler tick doesn't actually do that much. So start by enumerating what is actually required. The 2), which I suppose you're now trying to implement is I think entirely the wrong way. The tick really assumes it runs local, moving it to another CPU is insane. -- 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