[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hMgdvoZdBwyCXSf--Cy1-20qXDscNKGmfsyeVi8HVevw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:26:50 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
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 Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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?
Not really, but at the cost of a tiny bit of duplicated code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists