From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753067AbcBAGeI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 1 Feb 2016 01:34:08 -0500
Received: from LGEAMRELO12.lge.com ([156.147.23.52]:59111 "EHLO
	lgeamrelo12.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750805AbcBAGeG (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 1 Feb 2016 01:34:06 -0500
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.151
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 15:33:37 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick
Message-ID: <20160201063337.GC29804@X58A-UD3R>
References: <1452700891-21807-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1452700891-21807-2-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20160119130857.GC6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160119162210.GA5317@lerouge>
 <20160119185647.GA6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160119223320.GD5317@lerouge>
 <20160120054335.GE9882@X58A-UD3R>
 <20160120102614.GA5310@X58A-UD3R>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160120102614.GA5310@X58A-UD3R>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 07:26:14PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 02:43:35PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > 
> > It looks very tricky. I have a question. Do we have to call the
> > scheduler_tick() even while the tick is stopped? IMHO, it seems to be
> > ok even if we won't call it while the tick is stopped. Wrong? I mean,
> > 
> 
> The reason why I asked is that, scheduler_tick() looks to be a
> scheduler callback for *periodic tick*. IMHO, we need to choose one of
> these two.
> 
> 1) Make scheduler_tick() can handle it, not only for the periodic tick
> but also for the tick-like event during tick-stopped. But I am not sure
> if this is the right way.
> 
> 2) Distinguish the periodic tick from the tick-like event by which we
> can handle rcu callback, irq work and so on, so that the periodic tick
> handler only handles periodic stuff either locally or remotely, while
> the tick-like event handler only does its purpose. I think this is
> better, I am sure though.
              ^^^
              not
> 
> > ---
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
> > index bbc5d11..774adc2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> > @@ -1422,7 +1422,8 @@ void update_process_times(int user_tick)
> >  	if (in_irq())
> >  		irq_work_tick();
> >  #endif
> > -	scheduler_tick();
> > +	if (!tick_nohz_tick_stopped())
> > +		scheduler_tick();
> >  	run_posix_cpu_timers(p);
> >  }
> >  
> > ---
> > 
> > hm ???