On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:19:19AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 04:26:13PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:23:13AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > Heh! The only really good idea is for clocks to be reliably in sync. > > > > > > > > But if they go out of sync, what do you want to do instead? > > > > > > For a NOHZ task? Write a message to the syslog and reenable tick. > > Fair enough! Kicking off a low-priority task would achieve the latter > but not necessarily the former. And of course assumes that the worker > thread is at real-time priority with various scheduler anti-starvation > features disabled. > > > Indeed, a strong clocksource is a requirement for a full tickless machine. > > No disagrement here! ;-) I have a bot in my mind that randomly posts obvious statements about nohz_full here and then :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
