[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130411182727.GM29861@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:27:27 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
sbw@....edu, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, arnd@...db.de,
Robin.Randhawa@....com, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH documentation 1/2] nohz1: Add documentation.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:14:28AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >+2. Many architectures will place dyntick-idle CPUs into deep sleep
> >+ states, which further degrades from-idle transition latencies.
> >+
> I think this part should just be deleted.
> On x86, the deeper idle states are even used with non-tickless system (the break even times are
> quite a bit less than even 1 msec).
> I can't imagine that ARM is worse on this, at which point the statement above is highly dubious
Interesting point, and I freely admit that I don't have full knowledge
of the energy-consumption characteristics of all the architectures that
Linux supports. Adding a few of the ARM guys on CC for their take,
plus linux-rt-users.
If there are no objections, I will delete point 2 above as Arjan suggests.
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