Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: don't try to balance rt_runtime when it is futile

[Mike Galbraith]

On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 10:20 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: 
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 06:24:36PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 08:53:24AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 04:53:52PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> [ . . . ]
> 
> > > > We'll probably extend it that way in the future. But likely not in a near future.
> > > 
> > > My guess is that Mike would be OK with making nohz_full choice of CPUs
> > > still at boot time, but that he would like the CPUs that are not to be
> > > in nohz_full state be able to opt out of the context-tracking overhead.
> > 
> > Ok that might be possible. Although still require a bit of complication.
> > Lets wait for Mike input.
> 
> Sounds good!
> 
> Mike, would this do what you need?

I don't _have_ a here and now need at all, I'm just looking at the
possibilities.  For the users I'm aware of here and now, I'm pretty sure
they'd be tickled pink with it as it sits ('course tickled pink will
quickly become "I see a 1.073us perturbation once every three weeks").

-Mike 

--
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/