Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] nohz: Use sysidle detection to let the timekeepersleep
From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Wed Dec 18 2013 - 16:30:06 EST
On 12/18/2013 09:43 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 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.
Where's your ambition? :)
If the vdso timing functions could see that it's been too long since a
real timekeeping update, they could fall back to a syscall. Otherwise,
they could using rdtsc or whatever is in use.
--Andy
--
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/