[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1407191318320.3647@knanqh.ubzr>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:31:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] nohz: Enforce timekeeping on CPU 0
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
> first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
> can be any online CPU in most configs.
>
> Full dynticks has its own requirement though and needs the timekeeper
> to always be 0. And this requirement seem to accomodate pretty well with
> the above described boot timekeeper setting because the first clockevent
> device happens to be initialized, most of the time, on the boot CPU
> (which should be CPU 0).
This might have been discussed before... but this isn't ARM big.LITTLE
friendly at all.
Could we accommodate for any arbitrary CPU instead of making CPU 0
"special" other than its role as the boot CPU please? It doesn't have
to be completely dynamic, but CPU 0 might be a really bad choice for
ongoing periodic duties in some configurations. For example, we might
highly prefer to do this on CPU 4 for power efficiency reasons once it
is online and keep CPU 0 in a deep C-state as much as possible.
Nicolas
--
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