From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S934827AbcATQnA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:43:00 -0500
Received: from resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.42]:51390 "EHLO
	resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934552AbcATQm6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:42:58 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:42:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
X-X-Sender: cl@east.gentwo.org
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] sched: Upload nohz full CPU load on task
 enqueue/dequeue
In-Reply-To: <20160120164015.GB24537@lerouge>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601201041560.24351@east.gentwo.org>
References: <1452700891-21807-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1452700891-21807-5-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601200957580.3575@nanos> <20160120143117.GA22723@lerouge> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601201532220.3575@nanos>
 <20160120164015.GB24537@lerouge>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> > So we agreed long time ago, that we first fix the issues with s single task
> > running undisturbed in user space, i.e. tickless. Those issues have never been
> > resolved fully, but now you try to add more complexity of extra runnable
> > tasks, nohz tasks sleeping and whatever.
>
> Nohz tasks do sleep, really, at least we need to handle that case now.

Sleep meaning call into the OS to be put to sleep? Why would NOHZ be
active then?