[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/32] nohz/cpuset: Don't turn off the tick if rcu needs it
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> > Is there any way for userspace to know that the tick is not off yet due to
> > this? It would make sense for us to have busy loop in user space that
> > waits until the OS has completed all processing if that avoids future
> > latencies for the application.
> What is the usecase you have in mind? Is it for realtime purpose?

Please do not use "realtime" since I am not sure what you mean by that.
Its for a low latency applications that cannot use "realtime" because that
implies high latencies.

> The "tick stopped" is a volatile and relative state.

The use case is an application that cannot tolerate the latencies
introduced by timer tick processing. It will only start running when the
system is in a sufficiently quiet state.

> Relative because if a timer list is enqueued to fire 1 second later,
> the tick will be stopped until that happens. How do we consider this (common)
> case?
> Also as Chris noted it is volatile because the tick can be restarted anytime
> for random reasons: the CPU receives an IPI which makes it restart the
> periodic tick.

Ok some sort of notification would be good for that case. If a timer tick
happens and that was unavoidable then it would be good to log the reason
why this occured so that the system can be configured in such a way that
these interruptions are minimized.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-27 18:15    [W:0.085 / U:5.536 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site