Re: your mail
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Nov 16 2016 - 09:28:32 EST
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.