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 S1751891AbcBBAvL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 1 Feb 2016 19:51:11 -0500
Received: from LGEAMRELO12.lge.com ([156.147.23.52]:39159 "EHLO
	lgeamrelo12.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751751AbcBBAvI (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 1 Feb 2016 19:51:08 -0500
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.125
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:50:41 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        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: <20160202005041.GF29804@X58A-UD3R>
References: <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>
 <20160128160125.GB25866@lerouge>
 <20160129095016.GZ6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160201100513.GD29804@X58A-UD3R>
 <20160201103433.GP6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160201103433.GP6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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 Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:34:33AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 07:05:13PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:50:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 05:01:26PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > So lets check all the things we call on scheduler_tick():
> > > > 
> > > > _ sched_clock_tick(): maybe it doesn't need to be called when idle. I'm not sure.
> > > >   Some code in idle (timers, irqs, ...) might need to call sched_clock().
> > > 
> > > Only needed if you've got a shady TSC.
> > 
> > Yeh.. IMO, this can be done without the tick handling during nohz, with the
> > patch I am attaching. Could you check the patch? Or we have to handle it
> > remotely, too. (for a crazy TSC)
> 
> I think NOHZ_FULL already requires the TSC not to be wrecked.

What about the regular NOHZ? Or does not any code in idle call a kind of
sched_lock_cpu() at all?