Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Sep 2017 01:00:00 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 12/12] housekeeping: Reimplement isolcpus on housekeeping |
| |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:53:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:24:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > Although for example I guess (IIUC) that if you create an unbound > > > > timer on a NULL domain, it will be stuck on it for ever as we can't > > > > walk any hierarchy from the current CPU domain. > > > > > > Not sure what you're on about. Timers have their own hierarchy. > > > > Check out get_nohz_timer_target() which relies on scheduler hierarchies to > > look up a CPU to enqueue an unpinned timer on. > > Which is one of the most idiotic things we have in that code > path. Anna-Maria has posted this series which gets rid of that nonsense, by > queueing the timer on the current cpu into a wheel, which gets pulled in by > others. That makes a lot of sense because most of these timers get canceled > before expiry anyway. But we still need to fix the fallout and the few > corner cases to make that work reliably. We'll do that hopefully sooner > than later.
Sure, I definetly agree with that change.
| |