On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:27:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:14:28AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > >+2. Many architectures will place dyntick-idle CPUs into deep sleep > > >+ states, which further degrades from-idle transition latencies. > > >+ > > I think this part should just be deleted. > > On x86, the deeper idle states are even used with non-tickless system (the > > break even times are > > quite a bit less than even 1 msec). > > I can't imagine that ARM is worse on this, at which point the statement > > above is highly dubious > > Interesting point, and I freely admit that I don't have full knowledge > of the energy-consumption characteristics of all the architectures that > Linux supports. Adding a few of the ARM guys on CC for their take, > plus linux-rt-users. > > If there are no objections, I will delete point 2 above as Arjan suggests.
What Arjan said will also be true for Linux on Power systems. I am not sure "many architectures" would be the right way to characterize it. Thanks Dipankar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
