lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [NOHZ] Remove scheduler_tick_max_deferment
From
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-10 08:41    [W:0.155 / U:0.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site