On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:40:14 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> 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. Note, that this is a sched feature which would be a nop (jump_label) when disabled. And I'm sure it could also be optimized to be a static inline as well when it is enabled. I'm not saying we need to go this approach, but I'm just saying that the to-idle issue is a bit of a red herring. -- Steve
