Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:31:43 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Matthew Whitehead <tedheadster@gmail.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        mwhitehe@redhat.com, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: nohz problem with idle time on old hardware
Message-ID: <20140409113143.6174143f@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20140409112950.7be9f8ac@gandalf.local.home>
References: <20131113113927.GA13875@mwhitehe.csb>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1311131453500.30673@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
	<20131113102153.5f10e6b5@gandalf.local.home>
	<20131113103134.5b8cf02f@gandalf.local.home>
	<20131113105737.3f7a0b1b@gandalf.local.home>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1311131706260.30673@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
	<20131113111257.482c2955@gandalf.local.home>
	<20131113161829.GE4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20131113112338.7d303c0f@gandalf.local.home>
	<20131113163552.GF4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1311132052240.30673@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
	<CAOh2x=koQ4tXdq5_Bi4Vbo_k1a=zosFA3e4zRJGjzysYmC-PEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140409103138.29be16b9@gandalf.local.home>
	<CAKohponY+4y8G875wy4GsO1hTqERc7-hYKY6uQvLn28+32VxVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140409112950.7be9f8ac@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/