[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1224705925.20069.76.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:05:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
Subject: Re: sched: deep power-saving states
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 12:55 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:49:52 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > This still leaves us with the worst case IRQ response as given by the
> > deepest C state. Which might be un-desirable.
>
> that's a different problem in a different problem space.
Ah right, so the only point was trying to wake shallow cpus so as to try
and let deep cpus idle longer?
> > jcm was, once upon a time, working on dynamically changing the idle
> > routine, so that people who care about wakeup latency can run
> > idle=poll while their application runs, and the acpi C state stuff
> > when nobody cares.
> >
> > This could of course then be tied into the PM QoS stuff Mark has been
> > doing.
>
> in fact you already have this *exactly* today; this isn't future
> technology.
Interesting, what knob do I turn to get idle=poll dynamically?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists