Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932321AbVIEHuG (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2005 03:50:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932297AbVIEHuF (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2005 03:50:05 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:3480 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932304AbVIEHuD (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2005 03:50:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 13:19:28 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Nishanth Aravamudan , Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, ck list Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dynticks - implement no idle hz for x86 Message-ID: <20050905074928.GA7924@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <20050831165843.GA4974@in.ibm.com> <200509031801.09069.kernel@kolivas.org> <20050903090650.B26998@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <200509031814.49666.kernel@kolivas.org> <20050904201054.GA4495@us.ibm.com> <20050904212616.B11265@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050905053225.GA4294@in.ibm.com> <20050905083728.A24051@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050905083728.A24051@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1689 Lines: 46 On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:37:28AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > That's because, like x86, we've been ignoring each other. ARM > doesn't handle dyntick SMP yet - ARM is fairly young as far as > SMP issues goes, and as yet doesn't include a full SMP > implementation in mainline. > > Despite that, the timers as implemented on the hardware are not > suitable for dyntick use - attempting to use them, you lose long > term precision of the timer interrupts. Thats one of the problems I am seeing on x86 as well. Recovering wall-time precisely after sleep is tough esepcially if the interrupt source (PIT) and backing-time source (TSC/PM Timer/HPET) can drift wrt each other. PPC64 should be much better I hope (which is what I intend to take up next). > > 5. Don't see how DYN_TICK_SKIPPING is being used. In SMP scenario, > > it doesnt make sense since it will have to be per-cpu. The bitmap > > that I talked of exactly tells that (whether a CPU is skipping > > ticks or not). > > What's DYN_TICK_SKIPPING and what's it used for? It looks like > a redundant definition left over from Tony's original implementation. Tony was using it to signal that all CPUs are idle and timer are being skipped. With the SMP changes I made, I felt it can be substituted with the nohz_cpu_mask bitmap and hence I removed it. -- Thanks and Regards, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Labs, Bangalore, INDIA - 560017 - 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/