[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151013070436.GO3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:04:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched: consider missed ticks when updating global
cpu load
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:45:35PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > I think it will take more than a single patch to rework all of
> > update_process_times(). And we should also ask Thomas for his opinion,
> > but I think we want:
> >
> > - make update_process_times() take a nr_ticks argument
> > - fixup everything below it
> >
> > - fix tick_nohz_handler to not ignore the hrtimer_forward()
> > return value and pass it into
> > tick_sched_handle()/update_process_times().
> >
> > (assuming this is the right oneshot tick part, tick-common
> > seems to be about periodic timers which aren't used much ?!)
>
> this_nohz_handler() is the low res nohz handler. tick_sched_handle()
> is the high res one (I should rename these). I think we should rather
> find out the pending updates from update_process_times() itself and pass
> it to scheduler_tick() which is the one interested in it.
tick_nohz_handler() calls tick_sched_handler() ?!
And tick_nohz_handler() actually computes the number of ticks -- which
we then happily ignore.
Why compute it again a few functions down?
--
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