[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150813124401.GA29958@lerouge>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:44:02 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Vatika Harlalka <vatikaharlalka@...il.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
preetium@...rew.cmu.edu, preeti.murthy@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] nohz_full: Offload task_tick to remote housekeeping
cpus for nohz_full cpus
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:22:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:36PM +0530, Vatika Harlalka wrote:
> > This patchset is for offloading task_tick() to a remote housekeeping
> > cpu. The larger aim is to stop ticks on nohz_full cpus. For this, extra
> > work must be done by housekeeping cpus. So, task_tick is called from a
> > delayed workqueue for nohz_full cpus and the work is requeued every second
> > for those nohz_full cpus whose ticks are stopped while they are busy. In
> > the rest of the cases it will lead to redundant accounting. To facilitate
> > this, a new function tick_nohz_remote_tick_stopped is added to indicate
> > whether ticks are stopped on a remote cpu.
> > Tick related code in core.c is moved to tick.c
>
> *sigh* of course you didn't read what I've written on this topic..
What is it? Note Vatika wrote this after my suggestion, so if there is an issue,
I'm likely the responsible :-) But I don't recall you opposed to this solution.
Thanks.
--
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