Re: [PATCH 1/3] dynticks - implement no idle hz for x86

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>]

On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:37:28AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> That's because, like x86, we've been ignoring each other.  ARM
> doesn't handle dyntick SMP yet - ARM is fairly young as far as
> SMP issues goes, and as yet doesn't include a full SMP
> implementation in mainline.



> 
> Despite that, the timers as implemented on the hardware are not
> suitable for dyntick use - attempting to use them, you lose long
> term precision of the timer interrupts.

Thats one of the problems I am seeing on x86 as well. Recovering
wall-time precisely after sleep is tough esepcially if the interrupt
source (PIT) and backing-time source (TSC/PM Timer/HPET) can
drift wrt each other. PPC64 should be much better I hope (which is what I 
intend to take up next).

> > 5. Don't see how DYN_TICK_SKIPPING is being used. In SMP scenario,
> >    it doesnt make sense since it will have to be per-cpu. The bitmap
> >    that I talked of exactly tells that (whether a CPU is skipping
> >    ticks or not).
> 
> What's DYN_TICK_SKIPPING and what's it used for?  It looks like
> a redundant definition left over from Tony's original implementation.

Tony was using it to signal that all CPUs are idle and timer are
being skipped. With the SMP changes I made, I felt it can be
substituted with the nohz_cpu_mask bitmap and hence I removed
it.


-- 


Thanks and Regards,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs,
Bangalore, INDIA - 560017
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/