On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:08:30PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 11 April 2014 20:48, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 04:53:35PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > I think there's assumptions that tick runs on the local cpu; > > Yes, many function behave that way, i.e. with smp_processor_id() as > CPU. > > > also what > > are you going to do when running it on all remote cpus takes longer than > > the tick? > > > >> Otherwise (and ideally) we need to make the scheduler code able to handle > >> long periods without > >> calling scheduler_tick(). But this is a lot more plumbing. And the > >> scheduler has gazillions > >> accounting stuffs to handle. Sounds like a big nightmare to take that > >> direction. > > > > So i'm not at all sure what you guys are talking about, but it seems to > > me you should all put down the bong and have a detox round instead. > > > > This all sounds like a cure worse than the problem. > > So, what I was working on isn't ready yet but I would like to show what lines > I have been trying on. In case that is completely incorrect and I should stop > making that work :) > > Please share your feedback about this (Yes there are several parts broken > currently, specially the assumption that tick runs on local CPU):
I'm still not sure _what_ you're trying to solve here. What are you doing and why? -- 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/
