[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130328181332.GD14088@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:13:32 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: pjt@...gle.com, paul.mckenney@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, venki@...gle.com, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, robin.randhawa@....com,
Steve.Bannister@....com, Liviu.Dudau@....com,
charles.garcia-tobin@....com, Arvind.Chauhan@....com,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/7] workqueue: Add helpers to schedule work on any cpu
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:29:37AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yes, I actually like that part a lot although I do wish the idle check
> was inlined.
>
> What I'm wondering is whether the kinda out-of-band decision via
> sched_select_cpu() is justified given that it can and is likely to go
> through full scheduling decision anyway. For timer, we don't have
> that, so it makes sense. For work items, it's a bit different.
>
> To rephrase, *if* the scheduler can't already make proper decisions
> regarding power consumption on an idlish system, maybe it can be
> improved to do so? It could as well be that this CPU selection is
> special enough that it's just better to keep it separate as this
> patchset proposes. This is something up to the scheduler people.
> Peter, Ingo, what do you guys think?
Ping. Peter, Ingo?
Viresh, would it be difficult to make another measurement of the same
workload with the said workqueues converted to unbound? I think that
would at least provide a nice reference point.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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