On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:02:40AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:35:24PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote: > > From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com> > > > > i found do_timer accounts other than one tick, so i made > > update_cpu_load_active care that. > > > > is it intended because of its overhead? > > I think the idea was that the NO_HZ bits would deal with the other > cases.
in the case of NO_HZ (including FULL NO_HZ), NO problem. it would be dealt by update_idle_cpu_load() or update_cpu_load_nohz() in this case. however, we expect that update_cpu_load_active() is called every tick, but it is not true. that's why i suggested this. actually it did not happen a stop tick routine when i found that update_cpu_load_active() was called with interval which is several ticks, furthermore, more than 10 ticks. i checked this with debugger. is there anything i missed? > -- > 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/ -- 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/