On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:49:22PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > tick_nohz_stop_idle() to iowait if we called tick_nohz_start_idle() with > > nr_iowait > 0. > > All we need is just a new field in ts-> that records on which state we > > entered > > idle. > > Or we can turn ->idle_active into enum. And all other nr_iowait_cpu's > in this code should go away. > > Personally I am fine either way.
Me too. So my proposition is that we can keep the existing patches as they fix other distinct races (and we add fixes on what peterz just reported) and send them to Ingo. Ah and I'll wait for your review first. Then if all goes well on the pull request we describe him the nr_iowait race and we let him choose what to do with that nr_iowait migration race: either we ignore the migration and always account to what we saw on idle start, or we flush that time accounting on iowait migration, but that requires seqlocks on the idle path. Or may be Peter could tell us as well. Peter, do you have a preference? Thanks. > > Oleg. > -- 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/
