On Mon 2021-03-29 8:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:53 PM Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 19:54:26 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 6:53 PM Zhou Ti (x2019cwm)
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 18:01:47
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:53 PM Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 19:54:26 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 6:53 PM Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 18:01:47 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 9:37
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 19:54:26 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 6:53 PM Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 18:01:47 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 9:37 PM Zhou Ti (x2019cwm)
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On March 25, 2021
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 6:53 PM Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 18:01:47 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 9:37 PM Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
> > >
> > > On March 25, 2021 15:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:18 PM Zhou Ti
y understand
> > how much of a burden adding an extra branch would impose, so I don't know if
> > this tradeoff is worth it.
>
> It ultimately depends on the governor, which is why I think that the
> negative value check should be done by the governor, if needed, and
> not by
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 9:37 PM Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
>
> On March 25, 2021 15:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:18 PM Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
> > >
> > > On March 25, 2021 14:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 25, 2021 2:14:00 PM CET Frederic
On March 25, 2021 15:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:18 PM Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
> >
> > On March 25, 2021 14:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 25, 2021 2:14:00 PM CET Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:08:08PM +,
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:18 PM Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
>
> On March 25, 2021 14:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 25, 2021 2:14:00 PM CET Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:08:08PM +, Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
> > > > But I don't think it's a good
On March 25, 2021 14:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, March 25, 2021 2:14:00 PM CET Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:08:08PM +, Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
> > > But I don't think it's a good idea to handle this in callers, because
> > > logically the
On Thursday, March 25, 2021 2:14:00 PM CET Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:08:08PM +, Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
> > But I don't think it's a good idea to handle this in callers, because
> > logically the function shouldn't return negative values. Returning 0
> >
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:08:08PM +, Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
> But I don't think it's a good idea to handle this in callers, because
> logically the function shouldn't return negative values. Returning 0 directly
> would allow idle governors to get another chance to select again.
Hmm,
On March 16, 2021 12:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:08:08PM +, Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
>> But I don't think it's a good idea to handle this in callers, because
>> logically the function shouldn't return negative values. Returning 0
>> directly would allow idle
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:08:08PM +, Zhou Ti (x2019cwm) wrote:
> But I don't think it's a good idea to handle this in callers, because
> logically the function shouldn't return negative values. Returning 0
> directly would allow idle governors to get another chance to select
> again.
A:
日 3:57
收件人: Rafael J. Wysocki; Frederic Weisbecker; Peter Zijlstra
抄送: Thomas Gleixner; LKML; Yunfeng Ye; Paul E . McKenney; Marcelo Tosatti; Ingo
Molnar; raf...@kernel.org
主题: 回复: [PATCH 01/10] tick/nohz: Prevent tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() from
returning negative value
Yes, the return
] tick/nohz: Prevent tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() from
returning negative value
On 3/16/2021 3:53 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 03:35:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 02:37:03PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> On Tue,
On 3/16/2021 3:53 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 03:35:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 02:37:03PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 01:21:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:36:59PM +0100,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 03:35:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 02:37:03PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 01:21:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:36:59PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > From: "Zhou
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 02:37:03PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 01:21:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:36:59PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > From: "Zhou Ti (x2019cwm)"
> > >
> > > If the hardware clock happens to fire its
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 01:21:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:36:59PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > From: "Zhou Ti (x2019cwm)"
> >
> > If the hardware clock happens to fire its interrupts late, two possible
> > issues can happen while calling
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:36:59PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> From: "Zhou Ti (x2019cwm)"
>
> If the hardware clock happens to fire its interrupts late, two possible
> issues can happen while calling tick_nohz_get_sleep_length(). Either:
>
> 1) The next clockevent device event is due
From: "Zhou Ti (x2019cwm)"
If the hardware clock happens to fire its interrupts late, two possible
issues can happen while calling tick_nohz_get_sleep_length(). Either:
1) The next clockevent device event is due past the last idle entry time.
or:
2) The last timekeeping update happened before
21 matches
Mail list logo
