[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1508135135.8087.17.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 08:25:35 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, len.brown@...el.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/8] tick/nohz: keep tick on for a fast idle
On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 13:34 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2017/10/16 12:45, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 11:26 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll try to move quiet_vmstat() into the normal idle branch if this patch series
> >> are reasonable. Is fast_idle a good indication for it?
> >
> > see x86_tip 62cb1188ed86 sched/idle: Move quiet_vmstate() into the NOHZ code
>
> It looks like this commit makes tick stop critical as it can be invoked in interrupt
> exit path?
do_idle() ain't critical? It is in my book. Hopefully, you're about
to make that idle_stat.fast_idle thingy liberal enough that we cease
mucking about with the tick on every microscopic idle (and I can then
trash my years old local patch to avoid needlessly eating that cost).
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists