Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] nohz: Use sysidle detection to let thetimekeeper sleep

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:04:43AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 06:51 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > So this is what this series brings, more details following:
> > 
> > * Some code, naming and whitespace cleanups
> > 
> > * Allow all CPUs outside the nohz_full range to handle the timekeeping
> >   duty, not just CPU 0. Balancing the timekeeping duty should improve
> >   powersavings.
> 
> If the system just has one nohz_full cpu running, it will need another
> cpu to do timerkeeper job. Then the system roughly needs 2 cpu living.
> From powersaving POV, that is not good compare to normal nohz idle.

Sure, but everything has a tradeoff :)

We could theoretically run with the timekeeper purely idle if the other
CPU in full dynticks mode runs in userspace for a long while and seldom
do syscalls and faults. Timekeeping could be updated on kernel/user
boundaries in this case without much impact on performances.

But then there is one strict condition for that: it can't read the timeofday
through the vdso but only through a syscall.

Then if we can meet that condition, then CPU 0 could as well be full dynticks.

Now that's real extreme HPC ;)
--
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/