Re: [NOHZ] Remove scheduler_tick_max_deferment

[Viresh Kumar]

On 6 November 2014 22:54, Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> We did not need to housekeeper in the dynticks idle case. What is so
> different about dynticks busy?

We do have a running task here and so the stats are important..

> I may not have the complete picture of the timer tick processing in my
> mind these days (it has been a lots of years since I did any work there
> after all) but as far as my arguably simplistic reading of the code goes I
> do not see why a housekeeper would be needed there. The load is constant
> and known in the dynticks busy case as it is in the dynticks idle case.

I tried to initiate a thread on similar stuff, might be helpful:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/22/131
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/