[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55B26E74.5040803@ezchip.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:57:24 -0400
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] posix-cpu-timers: Migrate to use new tick
dependency mask model
On 07/23/2015 12:42 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> +static void cpu_timer_list_dequeue(struct cpu_timer_list *t)
> +{
> + if (!list_empty(&t->entry))
> + cpu_timer_dec_tick_dependency();
> + list_del_init(&t->entry);
> +}
Is the list_empty() test necessary? It wasn't in the original
posix-timers code, and it feels like a pretty serious bug if you're
doing a list_del on an empty list.
At a higher level, is the posix-cpu-timers code here really providing
the right semantics? It seems like before, the code was checking a
struct task-specific state, and now you are setting a global state such
that if ANY task anywhere in the system (even on housekeeping cores) has
a pending posix cpu timer, then nothing can go into nohz_full mode.
Perhaps what is needed is a task_struct->tick_dependency to go along
with the system-wide and per-cpu flag words?
--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com
--
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