Re: [PATCH 07/27] nohz: Assign timekeeping duty to a non-full-nohz CPU

2013-01-04 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
2013/1/2 Christoph Lameter : > On Sat, 29 Dec 2012, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >> @@ -163,6 +164,8 @@ static int __init tick_nohz_full_setup(char *str) >> return 1; >> } >> __setup("full_nohz=", tick_nohz_full_setup); >> +#else >> +#define have_full_nohz_mask (0) >> #endif >> >> /* >> @

Re: [PATCH 07/27] nohz: Assign timekeeping duty to a non-full-nohz CPU

2013-01-02 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > @@ -163,6 +164,8 @@ static int __init tick_nohz_full_setup(char *str) > return 1; > } > __setup("full_nohz=", tick_nohz_full_setup); > +#else > +#define have_full_nohz_mask (0) > #endif > > /* > @@ -512,6 +515,10 @@ static bool can_stop_i

[PATCH 07/27] nohz: Assign timekeeping duty to a non-full-nohz CPU

2012-12-29 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
This way the full nohz CPUs can safely run with the tick stopped with a guarantee that somebody else is taking care of the jiffies and gtod progression. NOTE: this doesn't handle CPU hotplug. Also we could use something more elaborated wrt. powersaving if we have more than one non full-nohz CPU ru