[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090220115745.43d202d6@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:57:45 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, ego@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
andi@...stfloor.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com,
vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] timers: framework for migration between CPU
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:07:37 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'd also suggest to not do that rather ugly
> > > enable_timer_migration per-cpu variable, but simply reuse
> > > the existing nohz.load_balancer as a target CPU.
> >
> > This is a good idea to automatically bias the timers. But
> > this nohz.load_balancer is a very fast moving target and we
> > will need some heuristics to estimate overall system idleness
> > before moving the timers.
> >
> > I would agree that the power saving load balancer has a good
> > view of the system and can potentially guide the timer biasing
> > framework.
>
> Yeah, it's a fast moving target, but it already concentrates
> the load somewhat.
>
I wonder if the real answer for this isn't to have timers be considered
schedulable-entities and have the regular scheduler decide where they
actually run.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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