[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1337865811.9783.152.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:23:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
borislav.petkov@....com, arnd@...db.de, akinobu.mita@...il.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, fweisbec@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
hughd@...gle.com, jeremy@...p.org, len.brown@...el.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, yongjie.ren@...el.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com,
penberg@...nel.org, yinghai@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com,
cpw@....com, steiner@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hpa@...or.com,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 8/8] x86/tlb: just do tlb flush on one of siblings
of SMT
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 06:19 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
> A decent heuristic might be to prefer idle SMT siblings for TLB
> invalidation. I don't know what effect that would have on power
> consumption (it would be rather bad if idling one SMT thread while the
> other one is busy saves much power).
Right, I've never really understood how C-states and SMT go together.
Arjan recently implied waking a thread sibling from C-state was
'expensive' which on first thought seems daft, the core is running
already.
--
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