On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:47:36PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4428,7 +4428,7 @@ static void update_idle_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq)
So if one were to read the comment above update_idle_cpu_load() one
would find there's a problem with jiffy based accounting.
> /*
> * Called from tick_nohz_idle_exit() -- try and fix up the ticks we missed.
> */
> -void update_cpu_load_nohz(void)
> +void update_cpu_load_nohz(int active)
> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> index 7c7ec45..515edf3 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> -static void tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick(struct tick_sched *ts, ktime_t now)
> +static void tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick(struct tick_sched *ts, ktime_t now,
> int active)
> {
> /* Update jiffies first */
> tick_do_update_jiffies64(now);
> - update_cpu_load_nohz();
> + update_cpu_load_nohz(active);
>
> calc_load_exit_idle();
> touch_softlockup_watchdog();
And we could solve all that nicely if we pull up the hrtimer_forward()
result from tick_nohz_restart(), that way we have the actual number of
ticks lost on this cpu, and no need to start guessing about it.
Hmm?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
