Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:27:05 +0300 | From | Tony Lindgren <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] dynticks - implement no idle hz for x86 |
| |
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com> [050905 10:03]: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > > Also, I am a bit confused by the use of "dynamic-tick" to describe these > > changes. To me, these are all NO_IDLE_HZ implementations, as they are > > only invoked from cpu_idle() (or their equivalent) routines. I know this > > is true of s390 and the x86 code, and I believe it is true of the ARM > > code? If it were dynamic-tick, I would think we would be adjusting the > > timer interrupt frequency continuously (e.g., at the end of > > __run_timers() and at every call to {add,mod,del}_timer()). I was > > working on a patch which did some renaming to no_idle_hz_timer, etc., > > but it's mostly code churn :) > > Yes, the name 'dynamic-tick' is misleading!
Huh? For most people dynamic-tick is much more descriptive name than NO_IDLE_HZ or VST!
If you wanted, you could reprogram the next timer to happen from {add,mod,del}_timer() just by calling the timer_dyn_reprogram() there.
And you would want to do that if you wanted sub-jiffie timer interrupts.
So I'd rather not limit the name to the currently implemented functionality only :)
Tony - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |