Re: [PATCH 0/6] x86/cpu hotplug: Wake up offline CPU via mwait ornmi

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > Vs. the interrupt/timer/other crap madness:
> >
> >  - We really don't want to have an interrupt balancer in the kernel
> >    again, but we need a mechanism to prevent the user space balancer
> >    trainwreck from ruining the power saving party.
> 
> Why not? I think the kernel is exactly the right place for it.
> It's essentially a scheduling problem. Scheduling in user space
> is not a good idea.

No argument about scheduling in user space. Though the real problem is
where do you draw the line between mechanism and policy?
 
> With MSI-X the drivers just want a static setting. User space
> shouldn't mess with it. 
> 
> Some of the workarounds for user space messing with it (like that
> interrupt rmap code) are really bad and just a workaround for doing the
> scheduling in the wrong place.
> 
> For dynamic changes it should indeed by part of scheduling,
> following similar rules, with only high level policy input
> from userland.

I'd be happy to see a patch which implements all of that and avoids
the pitfalls of the old in kernel irq balancer along with the short
comings of the user space one.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/