[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160418091721.GH2279@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:17:21 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: Correctly handle nohz ticks cpu load
accounting
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:56:51PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> @@ -4645,11 +4674,11 @@ void cpu_load_update_nohz(int active)
> void cpu_load_update_active(struct rq *this_rq)
> {
> unsigned long load = weighted_cpuload(cpu_of(this_rq));
> - /*
> - * See the mess around cpu_load_update_idle() / cpu_load_update_nohz().
> - */
> - this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies;
> - __cpu_load_update(this_rq, load, 1, 1);
> +
> + if (tick_nohz_tick_stopped())
> + cpu_load_update_nohz(this_rq, READ_ONCE(jiffies), load);
> + else
> + cpu_load_update_periodic(this_rq, load);
Considering it further, I wonder if needing it.
(Sorry if I missed something.)
Case 1. tickless -> (scheduler_tick) -> tickless
I am not sure for this case if the rq's load can be changed or not,
especially, if the rq's load can be changed *at this point*.
Please remind that the load[0] is set here.
Case 2. tickless -> (scheduler_tick) -> restart tick
Will be done by the tick restart routine when exiting irq.
-> no problem.
Case 3. tick -> (scheduler_tick) -> tickless
Same as before.
-> no problem.
Case 4. tick -> (scheduler_tick) -> tick
We can rely on regular schedule_tick().
-> no problem.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists