[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100827195751.GA1030@Krystal>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:57:51 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] sched: CFS low-latency features
* Peter Zijlstra (peterz@...radead.org) wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 14:32 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > These are problems you get only when you allow spawning any number of threads.
> > If, instead, you create a thread pool at timer creation, then you can allow
> > concurrency without problems with spawner context and error proparation.
>
> That would be a massive resource waste for the normal case where the
> interval > handler runtime.
Not if the application can configure this value. So the "normal" case could be
set to 1 single thread. Only resource-intensive apps would set this differently,
e.g. to the detected number of cpus.
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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