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  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, 10 Nov 2014 12:41:38 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <>
To:	Christoph Lameter <>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Gilad Ben-Yossef <>,
	Tejun Heo <>,
	John Stultz <>,
	Mike Frysinger <>,
	Minchan Kim <>,
	Hakan Akkan <>,
	Max Krasnyansky <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Hugh Dickins <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [NOHZ] Remove scheduler_tick_max_deferment

On 6 November 2014 22:54, Christoph Lameter <> wrote:

> We did not need to housekeeper in the dynticks idle case. What is so
> different about dynticks busy?

We do have a running task here and so the stats are important..

> I may not have the complete picture of the timer tick processing in my
> mind these days (it has been a lots of years since I did any work there
> after all) but as far as my arguably simplistic reading of the code goes I
> do not see why a housekeeper would be needed there. The load is constant
> and known in the dynticks busy case as it is in the dynticks idle case.

I tried to initiate a thread on similar stuff, might be helpful:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists