[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151118150944.GC30184@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:09:44 +0000
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 06:52:33AM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:04:41 +0000
> Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com> wrote:
>
> > Then I'm confused :-/
> >
> > I see the hrtimers, but the actual idle duration appears to be in
> > ticks rather than ms and then converted later.
> >
> > +/* Duration of idle time in ticks of each injection period
> > */ +unsigned int sysctl_sched_cfs_idle_inject_duration = 5UL;
> >
> > ...and futher down we have:
> >
> > + duration_msec =
> > jiffies_to_msecs(sysctl_sched_cfs_idle_inject_duration);
> I used hrtimers but still round around tick boundaries of ktime.
> It is more reliable than jiffies in terms of getting timely updates.
Okay. But it does mean that the defeault idle period is 5 ticks (50ms @
HZ=100) and not 5 ms.
--
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