[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240131231120.12006-11-frederic@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 00:11:15 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Peng Liu <liupeng17@...ovo.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: [PATCH 10/15] tick: Assume the tick can't be stopped in NOHZ_MODE_INACTIVE mode
The full-nohz update function checks if the nohz mode is active before
proceeding. It considers one exception though: if the tick is already
stopped even though the nohz mode is inactive, it still moves on in
order to update/restart the tick if needed.
However in order for the tick to be stopped, the nohz_mode has to be
either NOHZ_MODE_LOWRES or NOHZ_MODE_HIGHRES. Therefore it doesn't make
sense to test if the tick is stopped before verifying NOHZ_MODE_INACTIVE
mode.
Remove the needless related condition.
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
---
kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
index a07a04bb9d27..0d0370d8111e 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
@@ -1043,7 +1043,7 @@ static void tick_nohz_full_update_tick(struct tick_sched *ts)
if (!tick_nohz_full_cpu(smp_processor_id()))
return;
- if (!ts->tick_stopped && ts->nohz_mode == NOHZ_MODE_INACTIVE)
+ if (ts->nohz_mode == NOHZ_MODE_INACTIVE)
return;
__tick_nohz_full_update_tick(ts, ktime_get());
--
2.43.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists