[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55696E17.2030700@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 13:30:23 +0530
From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, anton@...ba.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: powernv/pseries: Decrease the snooze residency
On 05/30/2015 11:31 AM, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> * Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2015-05-29 19:17:17]:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> + if (max_idle_state > 1) {
>>> + snooze_timeout_en = true;
>>> + snooze_timeout = cpuidle_state_table[1].target_residency *
>>> + tb_ticks_per_usec;
>>> + }
>>
>> Any idea why we don't have snooze defined on the shared lpar configuration ?
>
> In shared lpar case, spinning in guest context may potentially take
> away cycles from other lpars waiting to run on the same physical cpu.
>
> So the policy in shared lpar case is to let PowerVM hypervisor know
> immediately that the guest cpu is idle which will allow the hypervisor
> to use the cycles for other tasks/lpars.
>
Oh Ok! Thanks for the clarification !
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
> --Vaidy
>
--
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