[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151116160910.3811c8ca@icelake>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:09:10 -0800
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
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>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:01:12 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > For the second case, which is much more rare, I think we do have
> > next timer exactly one tick away. Just don't know why tick will
> > continue into idle loop.
>
> Well, it should not be hard to figure that out. There are not so many
> checks involved when tick_nohz_irq_exit() is called.
Thanks for the tip, I found the cause is in
int idle_cpu(int cpu)
{
if (rq->nr_running)
return 0;
Since we only take into account of cfs_rq runnable taking over
cfs_rq->nr_running when forced_idle is set.
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