On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:50:57AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Hi, > > So I revisited the rq clock series I had for dynticks. The patches > actually were about upstream issues so I refactored the fixes > under that angle and gave up with the wrong asumption that rq > clock relies on the tick for its updates. > > Patches 1-4 fix some missing updates. Additionally I removed > 2 of these updates from the previous set: > > * No need to update the rq clock on idle_balance() because it should > follow a call to deactivate_task() (unless TIF_NEED_RESCHED is set > on idle without new task on the runqueue, not sure we want to cover that). > > * No need to update for try_to_wake_up_local() -> ttwu_do_wakeup() -> > check_preempt_curr() > as it's following deactivate_task(). > > Patch 5 brings accessors that will be necessary to settle an rq clock > debugging engine. What remains is to tag scheduler's entry/exit points > and report missing or redundant update_rq_clock() before calls to > rq_clock() and rq_clock_task().
Just noticed this queue was still sitting in the INBOX, I took it and will soon-ish hand to Ingo. Thanks! -- 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/
