On 01/15/2014 04:05 PM, Michael wang wrote:
> On 01/15/2014 02:45 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> yes, to save your scenario, we need to know the next timer for idle cpu,
>> but that is not enough, interrupt is totally unpredictable. So, I'd
>> rather bear the coarse method now.
>>>
>>> So what about just check 'ts->tick_stopped' and record one ticking idle
>>> cpu? the cost could be lower than time comparison, we could reduce the
>>> risk may be...(well, not so risky since the logical only works when
>>> system is relaxing with several cpu idle)
>>
>> first, nohz full also stop tick. second, tick_stopped can not reflect
>> the interrupt. when the idle cpu was interrupted, it's waken, then be a
>> good candidate for task running.
>
> IMHO, if we have to do gamble here, we better choose the cheaper bet,
> unless we could prove this 'coarse method' have more higher chance for
> BINGO than just check 'tick_stopped'...
Tick stopped on a nohz full CPU, but the cpu still had a task running...
>
> BTW, may be the logical should be in the select_idle_sibling()?
both of functions need to be considered.
>
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
>
>>
>
--
Thanks
Alex
--
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/
