On Thu, 27 May 2010, Milton Miller wrote: > > [Hmm, why did this not appear in patchwork.kernel.org? Now > I have to guess a CC list.] > > On Wed, 26 May 2010 around 22:43:50 -0400 (EDT), Len Brown wrote: > > From: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > TS_POLLING set tells the scheduler a task will poll > > need_resched() to look for work. > > > > True > > > TS_POLLING clear tells resched_task() and wake_up_idle_cpu() > > that the remote CPU is sleeping in idle, and thus requires > > a reschedule interrupt to wake them to notice work. > > No, that only applies to the idle task. > > > > > > Update the description of TS_POLLING to reflect how it works. > > "cleared when sleeping in idle, requiring reschedule interrupt" > > That would imply its set for every normal task that is not in some > kind of sleep state. you're right, just the idle task sets this flag. > > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > -#define TS_POLLING 0x0004 /* true if in idle loop > > - and not sleeping */ > > +#define TS_POLLING 0x0004 /* clear when sleeping in idle > > + requiring reschedule interrupt */ > > How about "idle task polling need_resched, skip sending interrupt"? I think that is an improvement over my wording. Though technically we're not polling need_resched in the case I have in mind. The hardware is snooping any write to the thread flags via MONITOR/MWAIT trigger address. cheers, -Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
