Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Feb 2016 15:33:37 +0900 | From | Byungchul Park <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick |
| |
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 07:26:14PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 02:43:35PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > > It looks very tricky. I have a question. Do we have to call the > > scheduler_tick() even while the tick is stopped? IMHO, it seems to be > > ok even if we won't call it while the tick is stopped. Wrong? I mean, > > > > The reason why I asked is that, scheduler_tick() looks to be a > scheduler callback for *periodic tick*. IMHO, we need to choose one of > these two. > > 1) Make scheduler_tick() can handle it, not only for the periodic tick > but also for the tick-like event during tick-stopped. But I am not sure > if this is the right way. > > 2) Distinguish the periodic tick from the tick-like event by which we > can handle rcu callback, irq work and so on, so that the periodic tick > handler only handles periodic stuff either locally or remotely, while > the tick-like event handler only does its purpose. I think this is > better, I am sure though. ^^^ not > > > --- > > > > diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c > > index bbc5d11..774adc2 100644 > > --- a/kernel/time/timer.c > > +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c > > @@ -1422,7 +1422,8 @@ void update_process_times(int user_tick) > > if (in_irq()) > > irq_work_tick(); > > #endif > > - scheduler_tick(); > > + if (!tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) > > + scheduler_tick(); > > run_posix_cpu_timers(p); > > } > > > > --- > > > > hm ???
| |