Hi Thomas,
On 10 July 2014 07:04, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>
>> So your patch series drops active hrtimer checks after adding it,
>> according to your subject line.
>>
>> Quite useeul
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> So your patch series drops active hrtimer checks after adding it,
> according to your subject line.
>
> Quite useeul to drop something after adding it, right?
>
> > hrtimer_start*() fam
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
So your patch series drops active hrtimer checks after adding it,
according to your subject line.
Quite useeul to drop something after adding it, right?
> hrtimer_start*() family never fails to enqueue a hrtimer to a clock-base. The
> only special case is
hrtimer_start*() family never fails to enqueue a hrtimer to a clock-base. The
only special case is when the hrtimer was in past. If it is getting enqueued to
local CPUs's clock-base, we raise a softirq and exit, else we handle that on
next interrupt on remote CPU.
At several places in the kernel,
4 matches
Mail list logo