[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170712122249.u6y4ymmk6qwvog57@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:22:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
len.brown@...el.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:09:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:34:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Also, RCU_FAST_NO_HZ will make a fairly large difference here.. Paul
> > what's the state of that thing, do we actually want that or not?
>
> If you are battery powered and don't have tight real-time latency
> constraints, you want it -- it has represent a 30-40% boost in battery
> lifetime for some low-utilization battery-powered devices. Otherwise,
> probably not.
Would it make sense to hook that off of tick_nohz_idle_enter(); in
specific the part where we actually stop the tick; instead of every
idle?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists