[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160812161919.GV3482@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:19:19 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...lanox.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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 Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 04:26:13PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:23:13AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > Heh! The only really good idea is for clocks to be reliably in sync.
> > >
> > > But if they go out of sync, what do you want to do instead?
> >
> > For a NOHZ task? Write a message to the syslog and reenable tick.
Fair enough! Kicking off a low-priority task would achieve the latter
but not necessarily the former. And of course assumes that the worker
thread is at real-time priority with various scheduler anti-starvation
features disabled.
> Indeed, a strong clocksource is a requirement for a full tickless machine.
No disagrement here! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists