From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] timekeeping: Fix clock stability with nohz
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:03:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131116070304.GB4355@netboy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1384440640-9482-1-git-send-email-mlichvar@redhat.com>
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 03:50:40PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> include/linux/timekeeper_internal.h | 4 +
> kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 209 +++++-------------------------------
> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 182 deletions(-)
This looks like an impressive simplification...
> - * So the following can be confusing.
Yep.
So I really have no idea how the deleted code worked (or didn't work
for nohz), but I can confirm that nohz time keeping is broken under
light system load. Running a high load (like recompiling the kernel on
all cores for CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC=y ;) hides the issue, but that is
obviously not the right solution.
Out of my ignorance, two questions spring to mind.
1. Considering the simplicity of Miroslav's patch, what was the
benefit of the much more complicated code in the first place?
2. Does this patch work in the CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC case just as well as
the deleted code?
Thanks,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-16 7:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-14 14:50 [PATCH RFC] timekeeping: Fix clock stability with nohz Miroslav Lichvar
2013-11-14 18:01 ` Rik van Riel
2013-11-16 7:03 ` Richard Cochran [this message]
2013-11-18 21:28 ` John Stultz
2013-11-19 14:13 ` Richard Cochran
2013-11-27 10:07 ` Richard Cochran
2013-11-21 10:12 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2013-11-18 20:46 ` John Stultz
2013-11-20 18:39 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2013-12-03 0:53 ` John Stultz
2013-12-03 4:03 ` John Stultz
2013-12-06 14:26 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2013-12-06 18:09 ` John Stultz
2013-12-06 18:37 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2013-12-07 1:43 ` John Stultz
2013-12-07 17:56 ` Richard Cochran
2013-12-07 22:16 ` John Stultz
2013-12-10 10:20 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2013-12-10 11:26 ` Miroslav Lichvar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131116070304.GB4355@netboy \
--to=richardcochran@gmail.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mlichvar@redhat.com \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox