On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 20:59:05 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:21:25AM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 20:06:30 +0100 > > Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > Which one? That is, I cannot find a idle_cpu() call from > > > tick_nohz_irq_exit(). > > it is tick_irq_exit(void), i will not call tick_nohz_irq_exit() if > > !idle_cpu() > > Ah, but I think we really only need to test for the idle task there, > the && need_resched() part of that function takes care of the rest. > > Once we have need_resched() set, we'll be on our way to > tick_nohz_idle_exit() to restart the tick again. Tested, it did the trick also. has less impact than changing idle_cpu(). My other point is the callers of idle_cpu() will see it returns false but in forced idle. Can't see anything bad since we skip load balance. Thanks, Jacob -- 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/
