[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161116142821.GZ3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:28:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Daniel Vacek <neelx.g@...il.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: your mail
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:25:43AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:40:14 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On top of which, the implementation had issues; now I know you're the
> > blinder kind of person that disregards everything not in his immediate
> > interest, but if you'd looked at the patch you'd have seen he'd added
> > code the idle entry path, which will slow down every single to-idle
> > transition.
>
> Isn't to-idle a bit bloated anyway? Or has that been fixed. I know
> there was some issues with idle_balance() which can add latency to
> wakeups. idle_balance() is also in the to-idle path.
>
Yes it is too heavy as is, but just stacking more crap in just because
its already expensive seems to wrong way around.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists