[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220930144812.GA1801669@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 07:48:12 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: RCU vs NOHZ
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:56:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:08:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:36:24AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > > How has this been tried; and why did the energy cost go up? Is this
> > > > because the offload thread ends up waking up the CPU we just put to
> > > > sleep?
> > >
> > > Because doing the additional work consumes energy. I am not clear on
> > > exactly what you are asking for here, given the limitations of the tools
> > > that measure energy consumption.
> >
> > What additional work? Splicing the cpu pending list onto another list
> > with or without atomic op barely qualifies for work. The main point is
> > making sure the pending list isn't in the way of going (deep) idle.
>
> Very good. Send a patch.
>
> After some time, its successor might correctly handle lock/memory
> contention, CPU hotplug, presumed upcoming runtime changes in CPUs'
> housekeeping status, frequent idle entry/exit, grace period begin/end,
> quiet embedded systems, and so on.
>
> Then we can see if it actually reduces power consumption.
Another approach is to runtime-offload CPUs that have been mostly idle,
and switch back to deoffloaded during busy periods.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists