[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0i0Ou2=_7RDPDcaQVhYf22UNbfj4g9xBR8_cEP8whWnJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:51:57 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 09/10] cpuidle: menu: Refine idle state selection for
running tick
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:49:34AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> -static inline ktime_t tick_nohz_get_sleep_length(void)
>> +static inline ktime_t tick_nohz_get_sleep_length(ktime_t *delta_next)
>> {
>> - return NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ;
>> + *delta_next = NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ;
>> + return *delta_next;
>
> Shouldn't that be TICK_NSEC ?
Yes, it should.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists