[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y1k2153p.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 20:43:54 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 12/45] posix-cpu-timers: Simplify posix_cpu_timer_set()
On Tue, Jun 27 2023 at 12:51, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 04:37:37PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Avoid the late sighand lock/unlock dance when a timer is not armed to
>> enforce reevaluation of the timer base so that the process wide CPU timer
>> sampling can be disabled.
>> + * SIGEV_NONE timers are never armed. In case the timer is not
>> + * armed, enforce the reevaluation of the timer base so that the
>> + * process wide cputime counter can be disabled eventually.
>> */
>> if (!sigev_none && new_expires && now < new_expires)
>> arm_timer(timer, p);
>> + else
>> + trigger_base_recalc_expires(timer, p);
>
> We don't need a recalc if sigev_none, right?
Correct.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists