[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151116151503.47cbd4cf@icelake>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:15:03 -0800
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:31:17 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Either one works but my concern is that users may not realize the
> > intricate CONFIG_ options and how they translate into energy
> > savings. Consulted with Josh, it seems we could add a check here to
> > recognize the forced idle state and relax rcu_needs_cpu() to return
> > false even it has callbacks. Since we are blocking everybody for a
> > short time (5 ticks default). It should not impact synchronize and
> > kfree rcu.
>
> Or we could just set things up so that whatever Kconfig you are using
> to enable this state causes CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL to also be
> enabled. Or that causes CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ to also be enabled, if
> that works better for you.
That would be great, we can work this out once the patch is
finalized. This is not a hard dependency in that it only affects the
efficiency of idle injection.
--
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