[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180307233911.GB9367@lerouge>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 00:39:12 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
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>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v2 2/6] sched: idle: Do not stop the tick
upfront in the idle loop
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:02:15AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/idle.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/idle.c
> +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/idle.c
> @@ -220,13 +220,17 @@ static void do_idle(void)
> */
>
> __current_set_polling();
> - tick_nohz_idle_enter();
> + tick_nohz_idle_prepare();
Since we leave tick_nohz_idle_exit() unchanged, can we keep tick_nohz_idle_prepare()
under the name tick_nohz_idle_enter() so that we stay symetric? And then make xen call
the two functions:
tick_nohz_idle_enter();
tick_nohz_idle_go_idle();
Also can we rename tick_nohz_idle_go_idle() to tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick() ?
This will be more self-explanatory.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists