[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=nTXutbVVf-7iAwtgya4zUL686XbG69ExQ3Pi=VQRE-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:19:54 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
vinmenon@...eaurora.org, shashim@...eaurora.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, mgorman@...e.de,
dave@...olabs.net, koct9i@...il.com,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] vmstat: Avoid waking up idle-cpu to service shepherd work
On 27 March 2015 at 01:48, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Shouldn't this be viewed as a shortcoming of the core timer code?
Yeah, it is. Some (not so pretty) solutions were tried earlier to fix that, but
they are rejected for obviously reasons [1].
> vmstat_shepherd() is merely rescheduling itself with
> schedule_delayed_work(). That's a dead bog simple operation and if
> it's producing suboptimal behaviour then we shouldn't be fixing it with
> elaborate workarounds in the caller?
I understand that, and that's why I sent it as an RFC to get the discussion
started. Does anyone else have got another (acceptable) idea to get this
resolved ?
--
viresh
[1] http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-kernel/2013-November/008866.html
--
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