Frederic Weisbecker writes:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 05:14:23PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> The reason for this < 2 is historical and goes back to the oddities of
>> the original timer wheel before the big rewrite.
>
> Ok. And is it still needed today or can we now forward even with a 1
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 05:14:23PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker writes:
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:21:35PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > The following part:
> >
> >> > * Also while executing timers, base->clk is 1 offset ahead
> >> > * of jiffies to avoid
Frederic Weisbecker writes:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:21:35PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Frederic Weisbecker writes:
>> > @@ -883,7 +883,7 @@ static inline void forward_timer_base(struct
>> > timer_base *base)
>> > * Also while executing timers, base->clk is 1 offset ahead
>> >
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:21:35PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker writes:
> > There is no apparent reason for not forwarding base->clk when it's 2
> > jiffies late, except perhaps for past optimizations. But since forwarding
> > has to be done at some point now anyway, this
Frederic Weisbecker writes:
> There is no apparent reason for not forwarding base->clk when it's 2
> jiffies late, except perhaps for past optimizations. But since forwarding
> has to be done at some point now anyway, this doesn't stand anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
> Cc: Peter
There is no apparent reason for not forwarding base->clk when it's 2
jiffies late, except perhaps for past optimizations. But since forwarding
has to be done at some point now anyway, this doesn't stand anymore.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Anna-Maria Gleixner
Cc:
6 matches
Mail list logo