On 06/12/2015 02:16 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 06/11/2015 01:36 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> The tick dependency is evaluated on every irq. This is a batch of checks
>> which determine whether it is safe to stop the tick or not. These checks
>> are often split in many details: posix cpu timers, scheduler, sched clock,
>> perf events. Each of which are made of smaller details: posix cpu
>> timer involves checking process wide timers then thread wide timers. Perf
>> involves checking freq events then more per cpu details.
>>
>> Checking these details every time we update the full dynticks state
>> bring avoidable overhead.
>>
>> So lets evaluate these dependencies once on context switch. Then the
>> further dependency checks will be performed through a single state check.
>>
>> This is a first step that can be later optimized by dividing task level
>> dependency, CPU level dependency and global dependency and update
>> each at the right time.
>
>> +static void tick_nohz_full_update_dependencies(void)
>> +{
>> + struct tick_sched *ts = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched);
>> +
>> + if (!posix_cpu_timers_can_stop_tick(current))
>> + ts->tick_needed |= TICK_NEEDED_POSIX_CPU_TIMER;
>> +
>> + if (!perf_event_can_stop_tick())
>> + ts->tick_needed |= TICK_NEEDED_PERF_EVENT;
>> +
>> + if (!sched_can_stop_tick())
>> + ts->tick_needed |= TICK_NEEDED_SCHED;
>>
>
> I see this getting kicked from task work and from ipi
> context, but does it get kicked on task wakeup, when
> we have a second runnable task on a CPU, but we decide
> not to preempt the currently running task to switch to
> it yet, but we will want to preempt the currently running
> task at a later point in time?
+1. This is not taken care of as far as I can see too.
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
