[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f8d72e47-7e84-cbd0-869f-69bf452a8bfb@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:12:02 -0400
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.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 7/27/2016 9:55 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> The critical piece of code is this:
>
> /*
> * Cycle through CPUs to check if the CPUs stay synchronized
> * to each other.
> */
> next_cpu = cpumask_next(raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu_online_mask);
> if (next_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> next_cpu = cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);
> watchdog_timer.expires += WATCHDOG_INTERVAL;
> add_timer_on(&watchdog_timer, next_cpu);
>
>
> Should we just cycle through the cpus that are not isolated? Otherwise we
> need to have some means to check the clocksources for accuracy remotely
> (probably impossible for TSC etc).
That sounds like the right idea - use the housekeeping cpu mask instead of the
cpu online mask. Should be a straightforward patch; do you want to do that
and test it in your configuration, and I'll include it in the next spin of the
patch series?
Thanks for your testing!
--
Chris Metcalf, Mellanox Technologies
http://www.mellanox.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists