On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:29:50 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:50:59 +0530
> Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > On 9 April 2014 20:01, Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > > Ouch! You are correct, this part of the patch makes no sense. That's
> > > what I get for reviewing a patch and not looking at all the code around
> > > the changes. (another kernel developer hangs head in shame :-( )
> > >
> > > I think that if statement should be nuked.
> >
> > Hmm, my opinion differs here :)
> >
> > If we completely remove this statement, we will run
> > tick_nohz_switch_to_nohz() even if nohz is not enabled. And check for
> > enabled must stay.
>
> Do we? This is only called by tick_check_oneshot_change() which has the
> following:
>
> int tick_check_oneshot_change(int allow_nohz)
> {
> struct tick_sched *ts = &__get_cpu_var(tick_cpu_sched);
>
> if (!test_and_clear_bit(0, &ts->check_clocks))
> return 0;
>
> if (ts->nohz_mode != NOHZ_MODE_INACTIVE)
> return 0;
>
> if (!timekeeping_valid_for_hres() || !tick_is_oneshot_available())
> return 0;
>
> if (!allow_nohz)
> return 1;
>
> tick_nohz_switch_to_nohz();
> return 0;
> }
>
> How often does it make it to that last check?
Hmm, looking at the code, I see it probably should still do the check.
OK, nevermind ;-)
-- Steve
--
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/
