[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [NOHZ] Remove scheduler_tick_max_deferment
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:41:38PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 6 November 2014 22:54, Christoph Lameter <> wrote:
> > We did not need to housekeeper in the dynticks idle case. What is so
> > different about dynticks busy?
> We do have a running task here and so the stats are important..
> > I may not have the complete picture of the timer tick processing in my
> > mind these days (it has been a lots of years since I did any work there
> > after all) but as far as my arguably simplistic reading of the code goes I
> > do not see why a housekeeper would be needed there. The load is constant
> > and known in the dynticks busy case as it is in the dynticks idle case.
> I tried to initiate a thread on similar stuff, might be helpful:

Would it make sense for unlimited max deferment to be available as
a boot parameter? That would allow people who want tick-free execution
more than accurate stats to get that easily, while keeping stats accurate
for everyone else.

Thanx, Paul

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-10 17:41    [W:0.090 / U:8.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site