[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <528E32EF.2050300@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:21:03 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, lenb@...nel.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>,
Chris Leech <christopher.leech@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rui.zhang@...el.com,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, hpa@...or.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] idle, thermal, acpi: Remove home grown idle implementations
On 11/21/2013 8:07 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> As long as RCU has some reliable way to identify an idle task, I am
> good. But I have to ask -- why can't idle injection coordinate with
> the existing idle tasks rather than temporarily making alternative
> idle tasks?
it's not a real idle. that's the whole problem of the situation.
to the rest of the OS, this is being BUSY (busy saving power using
a CPU instruction, but it might as well have been an mdelay() operation)
and it's also what end users expect; they want to be able to see
where there performance (read: cpu time in "top") is going.
--
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