[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240523093338.GJ40213@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 11:33:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Luis Machado <luis.machado@....com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kprateek.nayak@....com,
wuyun.abel@...edance.com, tglx@...utronix.de, efault@....de,
nd <nd@....com>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Hongyan.Xia2@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 08/10] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:06:04AM +0100, Luis Machado wrote:
> Booting the kernel with NO_DELAY_DEQUEUE (default to false), things work fine. Then
> if I switch to DELAY_DEQUEUE at runtime, things start using a lot more power.
>
> The interesting bit is if I switch to NO_DELAY_DEQUEUE again at runtime, things don't
> go back to normal. Rather they stay the same, using a lot more energy.
Ooh, cute.. weird. I'll try and see if we leak state somehow.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists