On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:49:17PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:52:48PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:51:26PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > We need the default timekeeping CPU to be able to receive IPIs sent
> > > from full dynticks CPUs when they wake up from full system idle state.
> > >
> > > Therefore we need an entrypoint from the scheduler IPI so that the
> > > need to poll on timekeeping duty is re-evaluated from irq_exit().
> > >
> > > In order to achieve this, lets take the scheduler IPI everytime as long
> > > as there is at least one full dynticks CPU around. Full dynticks CPUs
> > > are interested too in taking scheduler IPIs to reevaluate their tick.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> > > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
> > > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org>
> > > Cc: Alex Shi <alex....@linaro.org>
> > > Cc: Kevin Hilman <khil...@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/sched/core.c | 6 +++---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > index e85cda2..f46a7bc 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -1502,9 +1502,9 @@ void scheduler_ipi(void)
> > > if (tif_need_resched())
> > > set_preempt_need_resched();
> > >
> > > - if (llist_empty(&this_rq()->wake_list)
> > > - && !tick_nohz_full_cpu(smp_processor_id())
> > > - && !got_nohz_idle_kick())
> > > + if (llist_empty(&this_rq()->wake_list) &&
> > > + !tick_nohz_full_enabled() &&
> > > + !got_nohz_idle_kick())
> > > return;
> >
> > OK, this is what I was missing in my question about whether the
> > NO_HZ_FULL state was re-evaluated in the interrupt-return path.
>
> I tend to write my patchset by splitting every single logical bricks and then
> only
> in the end I enable the feature.
>
> But that makes a tradeoff between patchset granularity and global overview.
> And in the end,
> may be it's unbalanced toward overview.
>
> Notwithstanding bisectability.
>
> I remember I had similar reactions when I posted the initial full nohz
> patchset.
>
> OTOH it's not good to have big all-in-one patches. And granular patchsets
> like this
> are better to focus discussions on each isolated topics.
>
> There is a hard balance to find out here.
It is OK. I have no idea what possessed me to review the patches in
reverse order. I normally review in forward order.
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
