[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m2d3eqkgqj.fsf@firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:59:16 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce greedy hrtimer walk on idle
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com> writes:
>
> But, doing an exhaustive search for all softexpired timers, especially when
> CPU is idle, has its advantages:
> * it will result in less interruptions later (when CPU may be busy).
> * it can reduce number of wakeups in cases where not yet expired timer in above description could be deleted before they expire.
> * For timers resulting in task wakeups, doing wakeup on idle can improve the
> overall efficiency of the system. It can also bring load balance/migration benefits.
Seems like a good idea in general.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> index ca6f7ab..8d3e287 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> @@ -149,6 +149,8 @@ void cpu_idle(void)
> preempt_enable_no_resched();
> schedule();
> preempt_disable();
> + if (sysctl_hrtimer_greedy_lookup)
> + hrtimer_peek_ahead_timers();
So why is it a sysctl and not default?
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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