On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:09:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:34:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Also, RCU_FAST_NO_HZ will make a fairly large difference here.. Paul > > what's the state of that thing, do we actually want that or not? > > If you are battery powered and don't have tight real-time latency > constraints, you want it -- it has represent a 30-40% boost in battery > lifetime for some low-utilization battery-powered devices. Otherwise, > probably not.
Would it make sense to hook that off of tick_nohz_idle_enter(); in specific the part where we actually stop the tick; instead of every idle?
