On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:04:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:45:35PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > I think it will take more than a single patch to rework all of > > > update_process_times(). And we should also ask Thomas for his opinion, > > > but I think we want: > > > > > > - make update_process_times() take a nr_ticks argument > > > - fixup everything below it > > > > > > - fix tick_nohz_handler to not ignore the hrtimer_forward() > > > return value and pass it into > > > tick_sched_handle()/update_process_times(). > > > > > > (assuming this is the right oneshot tick part, tick-common > > > seems to be about periodic timers which aren't used much ?!) > > > > this_nohz_handler() is the low res nohz handler. tick_sched_handle() > > is the high res one (I should rename these). I think we should rather > > find out the pending updates from update_process_times() itself and pass > > it to scheduler_tick() which is the one interested in it. > > tick_nohz_handler() calls tick_sched_handler() ?!
Confused I was. So tick_nohz_handler() is the low-res handler and tick_sched_timer() is the high-res (they still need rename I think). Both end up calling tick_sched_handle(). > > And tick_nohz_handler() actually computes the number of ticks -- which > we then happily ignore. > > Why compute it again a few functions down? Ah, you mean we could get the return value of hrtimer_foward()? Both callers use hrtimer_forward() and I think it's fine to call it before tick_sched_handle(). That sounds good! -- 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/
