On 2013/7/2 11:20, Michael Wang wrote:
> Hi, Xie
>
> On 07/01/2013 07:26 PM, Xie XiuQi wrote:
> [snip]
>> Here is the kthread main logic. Although it's not a good idea, but it does
>> exist:
>> while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
>> /* call schedule every 1 sec */
>> if (HZ <= jiffies - las
On 2013/7/2 11:07, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 19:26 +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
>
>> Here is the kthread main logic. Although it's not a good idea, but it does
>> exist:
>
> Why not fix this instead?
>
>> while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
>> /* call schedule every 1 sec */
>>
Hi, Xie
On 07/01/2013 07:26 PM, Xie XiuQi wrote:
[snip]
> Here is the kthread main logic. Although it's not a good idea, but it does
> exist:
> while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> /* call schedule every 1 sec */
> if (HZ <= jiffies - last) {
> last = jiffies;
>
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 19:26 +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
> Here is the kthread main logic. Although it's not a good idea, but it does
> exist:
Why not fix this instead?
> while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> /* call schedule every 1 sec */
> if (HZ <= jiffies - last) {
> last
On 2013/7/1 23:19, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:45:04PM +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
>> We setting clock_skip_update = 1 based on the assumption that the
>> next call to update_rq_clock() will come nearly immediately
>> after being set. However, it is not always true especially on
>> non-
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:45:04PM +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
> We setting clock_skip_update = 1 based on the assumption that the
> next call to update_rq_clock() will come nearly immediately
> after being set. However, it is not always true especially on
> non-preempt mode. In this case we may miss s
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 19:26 +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
> On 2013/7/1 15:36, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 14:45 +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
> >> We setting clock_skip_update = 1 based on the assumption that the
> >> next call to update_rq_clock() will come nearly immediately
> >> after
On 2013/7/1 15:36, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 14:45 +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
>> We setting clock_skip_update = 1 based on the assumption that the
>> next call to update_rq_clock() will come nearly immediately
>> after being set. However, it is not always true especially on
>> non
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 14:45 +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
> We setting clock_skip_update = 1 based on the assumption that the
> next call to update_rq_clock() will come nearly immediately
> after being set. However, it is not always true especially on
> non-preempt mode. In this case we may miss some cl
9 matches
Mail list logo
