On 22-10-15, 14:40, Yunhong Jiang wrote: > A naive question is, why it's sure a tick will happen when the tickless > processor is in idle?
How do you get this impression? I don't think anyone has said that. We are talking about deferrable timers, which by design are only required if the target CPU is not-idle. If it is idle, then the timer isn't required to be serviced until the CPU wakes up. And the CPU can take whatever time it wants to wake up again. > Is it because scheduler load balance is sure to send a > tick to the processor in future? No. We aren't expecting the CPU to wake up any time soon. Just ignore the deferrable timer. -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
