Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Nov 2014 07:31:47 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [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 <cl@linux.com> 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: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/22/131
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
| |