[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140415105226.GP11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:52:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
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 Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:30:04AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> There is probably a few things that assume local calls but last time
> I checked I had the impression that it was fairly possible to call sched_class::task_tick()
> remotely. rq is locked, no reference to "current", use rq accessors...
>
> OTOH scheduler_tick() itself definetly requires local calls.
possible isn't the problem, its completely insane to do that.
--
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