Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:54:24 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: eric miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jack Ren <jack.ren@marvell.com>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: do not stop ticks when cpu is not idle
Message-ID: <20080718105424.GA22268@elte.hu>
References: <f17812d70807172341u92270fdvc80e72cc5599c56f@mail.gmail.com> <20080718102446.GV6875@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080718102446.GV6875@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 818
Lines: 25


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -4446,7 +4446,8 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
>  		rq->nr_switches++;
>  		rq->curr = next;
>  		++*switch_count;
> -
> +		if (rq->curr != rq->idle)
> +			tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick();
>  		context_switch(rq, prev, next); /* unlocks the rq */

hm, one problem i can see is lock dependencies. This code is executed 
with the rq lock while tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick() takes hr locks => 
not good. So i havent applied this just yet - this needs to be solved 
differently.

	Ingo
--
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/