[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151110145823.GD17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:58:23 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 06:01:16AM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:23:24 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > It looks like what you want is:
> >
> > hrtimer_forward(hrt, period);
> >
> > unconditionally.
> In the ideal world yes. But my thinking was that timers may not be so
> accurate to deliver interrupts, over the time the timeout error may
> accumulate so that eventually timers will be out of sync.
Timers have a global time base. Even if individual deliveries have an
error, there is no accumulated error.
--
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