On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and
>> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the
>> sleep_length is not very precised. Change it in this patch.
>
> What kind of imprecision are we talking about? Seconds, nanoseconds or
> lightyears?
>
> Your changelog lacks any form of useful information.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
>
sorry for the confusion. The imprecision can be caused by, for
example, the callback function registered for CPU_PM_ENTER, which may
consume a period of time within the 'idle' time. Besides, I also
wonder why not calc the 'sleep_length' in the
tick_nohz_get_sleep_length? This value is calculated at very
beginning of the idle in current approach.
