[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1338925967.2749.39.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:52:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>, linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] x86/cpu hotplug: Wake up offline CPU via mwait or
nmi
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 12:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 6/5/2012 12:49 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 21:43 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Vs. the interrupt/timer/other crap madness:
> >>
> >> - We really don't want to have an interrupt balancer in the kernel
> >> again, but we need a mechanism to prevent the user space balancer
> >> trainwreck from ruining the power saving party.
> >
> > What's wrong with having an interrupt balancer tied to the scheduler
> > which optimistically tries to avoid interrupting nohz/isolated/idle
> > cpus?
>
> ideally threaded interrupts are like this.. we really should push for
> more usage of such and it all falls into place
They are nothing like that.. threaded interrupts still have a hardirq
kick-off that's ran on whatever interrupt the interrupt routing picks.
--
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