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

[Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>]

On 05.09.2005 [10:27:05 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * 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!

I understand this. My point is that the structures are *not*
dynamic-tick specific. They are interrupt source specific, generally
(also known as hardware timers) -- dynamic tick or NO_IDLE_HZ are the
users of the interrupt source reprogramming functions, but not the
reprogrammers themselves, in my mind. Also, it still would be confusing
to use dynamic-tick, when the .config option is NO_IDLE_HZ! :)

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

I messed with this with my soft-timer rework (which has since has fallen
by the wayside). It is a bit of overhead, especially del_timer(), but
it's possible. This is what I would consider "dynamic-tick." And I would
setup a *different* .config option to enable it. Perhaps depending on
CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ.

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

Yes, true, it does enable that. Well, to be honest, it completely
redefines (in some sense) the jiffy, as it is potentially continuously
changing, not just at idle times.

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

I'm not trying to limit the name, but make sure we are tying the
strcutures and functions to the right abstraction (interrupt source, in
my opinion).

Thanks,
Nish