Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1313087
| From | Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick |
| Date | 2016-01-20 11:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qSYbx-51L-33@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <qSEcO-8kf-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <qSHkm-1Ws-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qSJFx-3m2-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <qSN6q-5HE-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qSTOy-25l-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
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. > --- > > 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 ???
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-19 14:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-19 20:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 23:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2016-01-20 06:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2016-01-20 11:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-01-20 09:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 18:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2016-01-22 09:50 +0100
csiph-web