[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1409110609320.2465@eggly.anvils>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Chintan Pandya <cpandya@...eaurora.org>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ksm: provide support to use deferrable timers
for scanner thread
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Chintan Pandya wrote:
> I don't mean to divert the thread too much. But just one suggestion offered
> by Harshad.
>
> Why can't we stop invoking more of a KSM scanner thread when we are
> saturating from savings ? But again, to check whether savings are saturated
> or not, we may still want to rely upon timers and we have to wake the CPUs up
> from IDLE state.
I agree that it should make sense for KSM to slow down when it sees it's
making no progress (though that would depart from the pages_to_scan and
sleep_millisecs prescription - perhaps could be tied to sleep_millisecs 0).
But not stop. That's the problem we're mainly concerned with here:
to save power we need it to stop, but then how to wake up, without
putting nasty hooks in hot paths for a minority interest?
I don't see an answer to that above.
Hugh
--
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