Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:31:43 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: nohz problem with idle time on old hardware |
| |
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:29:50 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:50:59 +0530 > Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 9 April 2014 20:01, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > Ouch! You are correct, this part of the patch makes no sense. That's > > > what I get for reviewing a patch and not looking at all the code around > > > the changes. (another kernel developer hangs head in shame :-( ) > > > > > > I think that if statement should be nuked. > > > > Hmm, my opinion differs here :) > > > > If we completely remove this statement, we will run > > tick_nohz_switch_to_nohz() even if nohz is not enabled. And check for > > enabled must stay. > > Do we? This is only called by tick_check_oneshot_change() which has the > following: > > int tick_check_oneshot_change(int allow_nohz) > { > struct tick_sched *ts = &__get_cpu_var(tick_cpu_sched); > > if (!test_and_clear_bit(0, &ts->check_clocks)) > return 0; > > if (ts->nohz_mode != NOHZ_MODE_INACTIVE) > return 0; > > if (!timekeeping_valid_for_hres() || !tick_is_oneshot_available()) > return 0; > > if (!allow_nohz) > return 1; > > tick_nohz_switch_to_nohz(); > return 0; > } > > How often does it make it to that last check?
Hmm, looking at the code, I see it probably should still do the check.
OK, nevermind ;-)
-- Steve
|  |