Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:22:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vatika Harlalka <vatikaharlalka@gmail.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, preetium@andrew.cmu.edu,
        preeti.murthy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] nohz_full: Offload task_tick to remote housekeeping
 cpus for nohz_full cpus
Message-ID: <20150813122223.GC16853@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cover.1439454836.git.vatikaharlalka@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1439454836.git.vatikaharlalka@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 992
Lines: 17

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:36PM +0530, Vatika Harlalka wrote:
> This patchset is for offloading task_tick() to a remote housekeeping
> cpu. The larger aim is to stop ticks on nohz_full cpus. For this, extra
> work must be done by housekeeping cpus. So, task_tick is called from a
> delayed workqueue for nohz_full cpus and the work is requeued every second
> for those nohz_full cpus whose ticks are stopped while they are busy. In
> the rest of the cases it will lead to redundant accounting. To facilitate
> this, a new function tick_nohz_remote_tick_stopped is added to indicate
> whether ticks are stopped on a remote cpu.
> Tick related code in core.c is moved to tick.c

*sigh* of course you didn't read what I've written on this topic..
--
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/