[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151110091408.5e31366c@icelake>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:14:08 -0800
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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>,
jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:00:10 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Different per CPU timer may intercept parameter changes at slightly
> > different time, so there is a race condition such that some CPUs may
> > catch the period change later by one period, which results in a
> > correct period change but at a different time, i.e. out of sync.
>
> Ah yes. So if the locking hurts I can come up with a lockless
> algorithm for this. Shouldn't be too hard.
Great! the current patch was designed to be lockless but a
little awkward. My idea was to have a common start time, then we don't
need to worry about CPUs out of sync, at most they will be off by one
period then catch up.
Thanks,
Jacob
--
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