lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] timer: Lazily wakup nohz CPU when adding new timer.
On 22-10-15, 14:40, Yunhong Jiang wrote:
> A naive question is, why it's sure a tick will happen when the tickless
> processor is in idle?

How do you get this impression? I don't think anyone has said that.

We are talking about deferrable timers, which by design are only
required if the target CPU is not-idle. If it is idle, then the timer
isn't required to be serviced until the CPU wakes up. And the CPU can
take whatever time it wants to wake up again.

> Is it because scheduler load balance is sure to send a
> tick to the processor in future?

No. We aren't expecting the CPU to wake up any time soon. Just ignore
the deferrable timer.

--
viresh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-23 04:41    [W:0.362 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site