[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <409bde01-720b-4602-bde9-a04262ea2c73@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 01:47:29 +0530
From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
"Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Swapnil Sapkal <swapnil.sapkal@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/19] sched/fair: Use rq->nohz_tick_stopped in
update_nohz_stats()
On 9/4/25 9:44 AM, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> "rq->nohz_tick_stopped" always follows the state of CPU on
> "nohz.idle_cpus_mask". Use the local rq indicator instead of checking
> for the CPU on the "idle_cpus_mask".
>
> Use READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() for "rq->nohz_tick_stopped" to ensure
> update_nohz_stats() always sees the latest value.
>
Is this ever called by remote CPU? If not, is READ/WRITE ONCE is necessary?
> This cleanup is necessary to avoid the number of references to the
> global "nohz.idle_cpus_mask" to ease the transition to a distributed
> nohz idle tracking strategy.
>
> No functional changes intended.
>
> Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@....com>
> Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
> ---
Powered by blists - more mailing lists