[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130701161910.GN6123@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 18:19:10 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, 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,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC nohz_full 0/7] v2 Provide infrastructure for
full-system idle
> I am guessing that you want CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL to implicitly enable
> the sysidle code so that CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_SYSIDLE can be eliminated.
> I will be happy to take that step, but only after I gain full confidence
> in the correctness and performance of the sysidle code.
FWIW if you want useful testing you need to enable it by default
(as part of NO_IDLE_HZ) anyways. Users will most likely pick
whatever is "default" in Kconfig.
> > If you want a switch for testing I would advise a sysctl or sysfs knob
>
> This would work well for the correctness part, but not for the performance
> part.
What performance part?
Are you saying this adds so many checks to hot paths that normal runtime
if() with a flag is too expensive?
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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