[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH v3] time/tick-sched: idle load balancing when nohz_full cpu becomes idle.
From:       Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring () web ! de>
Date:       2024-05-09 8:16:15
Message-ID: 5886464d-a867-471e-858e-b4ed732a1d76 () web ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

>>> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
>>> @@ -1228,8 +1228,10 @@ void tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick(void)
>>>               ts->idle_sleeps++;
>>>               ts->idle_expires = expires;
>>>
>>> -             if (!was_stopped && tick_sched_flag_test(ts, TS_FLAG_STOPPED)) {
>>> -                     ts->idle_jiffies = ts->last_jiffies;
>>> +             if (tick_sched_flag_test(ts, TS_FLAG_STOPPED)) {
>>> +                     if (!was_stopped)
>>> +                             ts->idle_jiffies = ts->last_jiffies;
>>> +
>>>                       nohz_balance_enter_idle(cpu);
>>>               }
…
> So, I think it's enough in commit message?
…

We are trying to clarify special implementation details here.
Our corresponding wording preferences are probably different.
I hope that a better common understanding can be achieved also for
another transformation.

* Thus I became curious how you got interested to adjust this software
  component further.

* Will any other data representation become more helpful for the circumstances
  according to calls of a function like "tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick"?

* How do you think about to stress condition ordering concerns around
  the system configuration "nohz_full"?

* How will related changelogs evolve further?


Regards,
Markus

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]