[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52B102BB.1050907@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:04:43 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] nohz: Use sysidle detection to let the timekeeper
sleep
On 12/18/2013 06:51 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> So this is what this series brings, more details following:
>
> * Some code, naming and whitespace cleanups
>
> * Allow all CPUs outside the nohz_full range to handle the timekeeping
> duty, not just CPU 0. Balancing the timekeeping duty should improve
> powersavings.
If the system just has one nohz_full cpu running, it will need another
cpu to do timerkeeper job. Then the system roughly needs 2 cpu living.
>From powersaving POV, that is not good compare to normal nohz idle.
>
> * Let the timekeeper (including CPU 0) sleep when its duty is
> handed over to another CPU
>
> * Allow timekeeper to sleep when all full dynticks CPUs are sleeping
> (plug nohz to RCU sysidle detection)
Thanks Fredic!
It is much better on powersaving POV compare to current nohz_full. :)
>
> * Wake up timekeeper with an IPI when full dynticks CPUs exit sysidle
> state
>
> * Wake up CPU 0 when a secondary timekeeper is offlined so that its
> duty gets migrated
--
Thanks
Alex
--
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