Re: [PATCH 04/32] x86: New cpuset nohz irq vector

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 00:51 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> > Probably just use irq_work for self ipis, and normal ipis for other
> > CPUs.
> 
> Right. And that's one more reason why we want to know if the arch
> implements irq work with self ipis or not. If the arch can't, then we
> just don't stop the tick.

We can just allow certain archs to have cpuset/nohz. Make it depend on
features that you want (or makes nohz easier to implement).

> 
> > Also, what reason do we have to force a task out of nohz? IOW, do we
> > really need this?
> 
> When a posix CPU timer is enqueued, when a new task is enqueued, etc...

I was thinking about something other than itself. That is, who would
enqueue a posix cpu timer on the cpu other than the task running with
nohz on that cpu?

A new task would send the schedule ipi too. Which would enqueue the task
and take the cpu out of nohz, no?


> 
> >
> > Also, perhaps we could just tag onto the schedule_ipi() function instead
> > of having to create a new IPI for all archs?
> 
> irq work should be just fine. No need to add more overhead on the
> schedule ipi I think.

irq_work can send the work to another CPU right? This part I wasn't sure
about.

-- Steve


--
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/