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

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com> [050905 10:03]:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > 
> > Also, I am a bit confused by the use of "dynamic-tick" to describe these
> > changes. To me, these are all NO_IDLE_HZ implementations, as they are
> > only invoked from cpu_idle() (or their equivalent) routines. I know this
> > is true of s390 and the x86 code, and I believe it is true of the ARM
> > code? If it were dynamic-tick, I would think we would be adjusting the
> > timer interrupt frequency continuously (e.g., at the end of
> > __run_timers() and at every call to {add,mod,del}_timer()). I was
> > working on a patch which did some renaming to no_idle_hz_timer, etc.,
> > but it's mostly code churn :)
> 
> Yes, the name 'dynamic-tick' is misleading!

Huh? For most people dynamic-tick is much more descriptive name than
NO_IDLE_HZ or VST!

If you wanted, you could reprogram the next timer to happen from
{add,mod,del}_timer() just by calling the timer_dyn_reprogram() there.

And you would want to do that if you wanted sub-jiffie timer interrupts.

So I'd rather not limit the name to the currently implemented functionality
only :)

Tony