[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180305104446.GN25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:44:46 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Ilsche <thomas.ilsche@...dresden.de>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 1/7] time: tick-sched: Reorganize idle tick
management code
On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 11:24:00PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> +/**
> + * tick_nohz_idle_prepare - prepare for entering idle on the current CPU.
> + *
> + * Called when we start the idle loop.
> + */
> +void tick_nohz_idle_prepare(void)
> +{
> + __tick_nohz_idle_prepare();
> +
> + local_irq_enable();
> +}
I really dislike the asymmetry in IRQ state you introduced here.
__tick_nohz_idle_prepare() disables IRQs. Must we do that?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists