* Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > I'll reply to this as I come up with comments. > > First thing is, don't call it NO_HZ_FULL. A better name would > be NO_HZ_CPU. I would like to reserve NO_HZ_FULL when we > totally remove jiffies :-)
I don't think we want yet another config option named in a weird way. What we want instead is to just split NO_HZ up into its conceptual parts: CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE CONFIG_NO_HZ_USER_SPACE CONFIG_NO_HZ_KERNEL_SPACE Where the current status quo is NO_HZ_IDLE=y, and Frederic is about to introduce NO_HZ_USER_SPACE=y. When jiffies get removed we get NO_HZ_KERNEL_SPACE=y. The 'CONFIG_NO_HZ' meta-option, which we should leave for easy configurability and for compatibility, should get us the currently recommended default, which for the time being might be: CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE=y # CONFIG_NO_HZ_USER_SPACE is disabled Btw., you could add CONFIG_NO_HZ_KERNEL_SPACE right away, just keep it false all the time. That would document our future plans pretty well. Once CONFIG_NO_HZ_USER_SPACE is proven problem-free, we might default to: CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE=y CONFIG_NO_HZ_USER_SPACE=y The goal is to have this in the distant future: CONFIG_NO_HZ=y CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE=y CONFIG_NO_HZ_USER_SPACE=y CONFIG_NO_HZ_KERNEL_SPACE=y And eventually we might even be able to get rid of all the 3 variants, and only offer full-on/off. Agreed? Thanks, Ingo -- 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/