[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1253913169.7103.529.camel@pasglop>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 07:12:48 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] cpu: pseries: Cpu offline states framework
On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 16:48 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 10:51 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:11 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I still think its a layering violation... its the hypervisor manager
> > > that should be bothered in what state an off-lined cpu is in.
> > >
> > That's not how our hypervisor works.
>
> Then fix it?
Are you serious ? :-)
> CPU hotplug is terribly invasive and expensive to the kernel, doing
> hotplug on a minute basis is just plain crazy.
>
> If you want a CPU in a keep it near and don't hand it back to the HV
> state, why not use cpusets to isolate it and simply not run tasks on it?
>
> cpusets don't use stopmachine and are much nicer to the rest of the
> kernel over-all.
Gautham, what is the different in term of power saving between having
it idle for long periods of time (which could do H_CEDE and with NO_HZ,
probably wouln't need to wake up that often) and having it unplugged in
a H_CEDE loop ?
Ben.
--
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