On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:33:06AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 07:04:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:57:41AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:34:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 04:47:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > So we really have to have -all- the CPUs be idle to turn off the
> > > > > timekeeper.
> > > >
> > > > That seems to be pretty unavoidable any which way around.
> > >
> > > Hmmm... The exception would be the likely common case where none of
> > > the CPUs are flagged as nohz_full= CPUs. If we handled that case as
> > > if CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=n, we would have handled almost all of
> > > the problem.
> >
> > You mean that is not currently the case? Yes that seems like a fairly
> > sane thing to do.
>
> Hard to say -- need to see where Frederic is putting the call to
> rcu_sys_is_idle(). On the RCU side, I could potentially lower overhead
> by checking tick_nohz_full_enabled() in a few functions.
Yeah you definetly can.
Just put this in the very beginning of rcu_sys_is_idle():
if (tick_nohz_full_enabled())
return true;
That imply perhaps a more appropriate name like rcu_sys_need_timekeeper(),
with inverted condition.
--
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/
