[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpokk4rGeP3QfVT5_HBO4pc=22yPBLV78D++y1Ab72y1OJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:11:52 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Daniel Sangorrin <daniel.sangorrin@...hiba.co.jp>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] Migrate timers away from cpuset on setting cpuset.quiesce
On 24 April 2014 14:01, Daniel Sangorrin <daniel.sangorrin@...hiba.co.jp> wrote:
> In kernel/cpuset.c:quiesce_cpuset() you are using the function
> 'smp_call_function_any' which asks CPU cores in 'cpumask' to
> execute the functions 'hrtimer_quiesce_cpu' and 'timer_quiesce_cpu'.
>
> In the case above, 'cpumask' corresponds to core 0. Since I'm forcing
> the call to be executed from core 1 (by using taskset),
> an inter-processor interrupt is sent to core 0 for those functions
> to be executed.
Ahh, I understood that now :) .. So we are setting cpuset.quiesce from CPU1
which will do a IPI to get migrate_timers called on CPU0.. I was setting quiesce
from CPU0 only in my tests :)
But how does this work fine on x86 then? There we should have exactly same
problem, isn't it?
> Ok, thank you! I see that you have already fixed the problem. I tested
> your tree on ARM and now it seems to work correctly.
Yeah, I just pushed your changes as well at the time I wrote last mail :)
--
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