Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751910AbaKJHLk (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 02:11:40 -0500 Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:35228 "EHLO mail-ob0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751268AbaKJHLj (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 02:11:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:41:38 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [NOHZ] Remove scheduler_tick_max_deferment From: Viresh Kumar To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Frederic Weisbecker , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Gilad Ben-Yossef , Tejun Heo , John Stultz , Mike Frysinger , Minchan Kim , Hakan Akkan , Max Krasnyansky , "Paul E. McKenney" , Hugh Dickins , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6 November 2014 22:54, Christoph Lameter 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 -- 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/