[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1411101020180.6094@gentwo.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:21:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
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>,
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 Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Would it make sense for unlimited max deferment to be available as
> a boot parameter? That would allow people who want tick-free execution
> more than accurate stats to get that easily, while keeping stats accurate
> for everyone else.
Well at least it would help us to get started on figuring out how to
deal with other processor interruptions that occur in intervals of
seconds or minutes.
--
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