[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151106074510.GM3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 08:45:10 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 03:36:25PM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
> I did some testing with the code below, it shows random
> [ 150.442597] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 02
> [ 153.032673] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 202
> [ 153.203785] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 202
> [ 153.206486] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 282
> I recalled that was why i checked for local_softirq_pending in the
> initial patch, still trying to find out how we can avoid that. These
> also causes non stop sched ticks in the inner idle loop.
Check the softirq stuff before calling throttle ?
--
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