On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:08:30PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 11 April 2014 20:48, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 04:53:35PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
I think there's assumptions that tick runs on the local cpu;
Yes, many function behave that way, i.e. with smp_processor_id() as CPU.
also what are you going to do when running it on all remote cpus takes longer than the tick?
Otherwise (and ideally) we need to make the scheduler code able to handle long periods without calling scheduler_tick(). But this is a lot more plumbing. And the scheduler has gazillions accounting stuffs to handle. Sounds like a big nightmare to take that direction.
So i'm not at all sure what you guys are talking about, but it seems to me you should all put down the bong and have a detox round instead.
This all sounds like a cure worse than the problem.
So, what I was working on isn't ready yet but I would like to show what lines I have been trying on. In case that is completely incorrect and I should stop making that work :)
Please share your feedback about this (Yes there are several parts broken currently, specially the assumption that tick runs on local CPU):
I'm still not sure _what_ you're trying to solve here. What are you doing and why?