2013/2/7 Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>: > On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 17:25 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >> At least for now we seem to agree on CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE and keep >> CONFIG_NO_HZ for compatibility. Are you ok with that? If so I'll send >> a patch. > > I believe that Ingo was suggesting to have CONFIG_NO_HZ give options to > what type of config NO_HZ you want. Something like: > > config NO_HZ > bool "Enable tickless support" > > config NO_HZ_IDLE > bool "Stop tick when CPU is idle" > default y > depends on NO_HZ
Sounds good! > > config NO_HZ_TASK > bool "Stop tick on specified CPUs when single task is running" > default n > depends on NO_HZ Ok I launched another debate about that single task thing. I wish we don't make it a fundamental component but rather an implementation detail that can be dynamically dealt with in the future. Anyway let's talk about that on my previous answer. > > That is, if you select NO_HZ, by default NO_HZ_IDLE is also selected. > But in the kernel the NO_HZ_IDLE is used. Yeah, nice idea! > > -- Steve > > -- 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/