[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALdu-PAd_sr=k1xDPgeFr4Cx2U2x+EZYUz4ykyrNUSCSOb2osQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 00:45:48 -0700
From: Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/32] Nohz cpusets (was: Nohz Tasks)
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why not do it unconditionally? That is, if all the conditions are
>> fulfilled, disable the tick regardless of any cpuset settings.
>
> Because I'm not sure it's a win on every workload. This involves
> some hooks here and there (syscall slow path), IPIs, etc...
I agree with Avi. I'd be inclined to investigate further to see if
there are any important workloads on which it's not a win - and then
add the extra complexity to control it from cpusets if necessary.
Unless there's really a good reason to make it configurable, it's
simpler to make it unconditional.
Paul
--
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