Re: [PATCH 1/6] hrtimer: Provide clock_was_set_delayed()

[John Stultz]

On 07/11/2012 08:18 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> That leaves NOHZ enabled systems and there we might be clever and
> avoid the IPIs to those cores which are not idle and let the tick
> interrupt deal with it. And we can make the calls async and just let
> them raise the hrtimer softirq on those cores, which will run the
> hrtimer interrupt code and take care of everything.

I'm not familiar with the details of the code that tracks which cores 
are idle or not, but I'd worry with this approach that there might be 
further races in determining which cores are idle and which cores are 
about to go idle with stale base offsets.

I'll see if my worry is unfounded, but it might be a bit too clever for 
rare events.

thanks
-john

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/