[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120906203957.GW2448@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:39:57 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Add callback-free CPUs
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 08:21:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 10:46 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Getting these
> > CPUs into adaptive-tick mode more quickly reduces OS jitter, which is
> > one big expected benefit of adaptive-tick mode.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that statement. Its a transition thing and
> therefore statistically irrelevant on the whole -- assuming we
> transition rarely.
>
> And for those who cannot deal with the transition effects, a barrier was
> proposed which would wait until the system hit this state -- although
> the specific implementation of this isn't clear yet afaik.
>
> I very much think we should focus on getting adaptive tick working as
> simple as possible and worry about transition effects later, if at all.
I expect that the RT folks will be interested as well, and they will
likely care about the transition effects because they degrade worst-case
behavior.
Thanx, 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