[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1607271452530.9567@east.gentwo.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:53:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
cc: Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...lanox.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: clocksource_watchdog causing scheduling of timers every second
(was [v13] support "task_isolation" mode)
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> Looks good. Did you omit the equivalent fix in clocksource_start_watchdog()
> on purpose? For now I just took your change, but tweaked it to add the
> equivalent diff with cpumask_first_and() there.
Can the watchdog be started on an isolated cpu at all? I would expect that
the code would start a watchdog only on a housekeeping cpu.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists