[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170720141940.4vhih472if5ikdi4@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:19:40 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, len.brown@...el.com,
rjw@...ysocki.net, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 05:50:54AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > static void cpuidle_idle_call()
> > {
> > rcu_idle_enter()
> > ......
> > rcu_idle_exit()
> > }
> >
> > I want
> >
> > static void cpuidle_idle_call()
> > {
> > if (tick stopped)
> > rcu_idle_enter()
> > ......
> > if (tick stopped)
> > rcu_idle_exit()
> > }
> >
> > Or checking tick stop can be put into rcu_idle_enter/exit
>
> The answer is the traditional "it depends".
>
> If the above change was all that you did, that would be a bug in the
> case where the predicted short idle time turned out to in reality be an
> indefinite idle time.
Can't be, you didn't disable the tick after all, so you're guaranteed to
get interrupted by the tick and try again.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists