[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1802171125270.1473@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 11:27:00 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] nohz: Allow to check if remote CPU tick is stopped
On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> This check is racy but provides a good heuristic to determine whether
> a CPU may need a remote tick or not.
>
> +int tick_nohz_tick_stopped_cpu(int cpu)
s/int/bool/ but I'm not religious about that.
> +{
> + struct tick_sched *ts = per_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched, cpu);
> +
> + return ts->tick_stopped;
> +}
Other than that nit:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists