[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpokE8pQUwTuMbnooAd3TsTgmrQWP4RtoJdwhJ5zps+O2zA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:41:38 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@....qualcomm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [NOHZ] Remove scheduler_tick_max_deferment
On 6 November 2014 22:54, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> 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:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/22/131
--
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