[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151117102449.GR3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:24:49 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 09:04:03PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 06:57:14PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On 11/16/2015 6:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >Fair point. When in the five-jiffy throttling state, what can wake up
> > >a CPU? In an earlier version of this proposal, the answer was "nothing",
> > >but maybe that has changed.
> >
> > device interrupts are likely to wake the cpus.
>
> OK, that I cannot help you with. But presumably if the interrupt handler
> does a wakeup (or similar), that is deferred to the end of the throttling
> interval? Timers are also deferred, including hrtimers?
This throttling thing only throttles 'normal' tasks, real-time tasks
will still run.
--
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