lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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 ???

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-01 08:21    [W:0.073 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site