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.
>
> * Let the timekeeper (including CPU 0) sleep when its duty is
> handed over to another CPU
>
> * Allow timekeeper to sleep when all full dynticks CPUs are sleeping
> (plug nohz to RCU sysidle detection)
Thanks Fredic!
It is much better on powersaving POV compare to current nohz_full. :)
>
> * Wake up timekeeper with an IPI when full dynticks CPUs exit sysidle
> state
>
> * Wake up CPU 0 when a secondary timekeeper is offlined so that its
> duty gets migrated
--
Thanks
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
