On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 09:28:55AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> Seems like we could schedule timer interrupts based solely on add_timer
> type stuff; the scheduler could use it if necessary for load balancing
> (along with fork/exec based balancing perhaps) on large machines where
> load imbalances hurt throughput a lot. But on small systems if all
Even if we were to go for this tickless design, the fundamental question
remains: who wakes up the (sleeping) idle CPU upon a imbalance? Does some other
(busy) CPU wake it up (which makes the implementation complex) or the idle CPU
checks imbalance itself at periodic intervals (which restricts the amount of
time a idle CPU may sleep).
> your processes were blocked, you'd just go to sleep indefinitely and
> save a bit of power and avoid unnecessary overhead.
>
> I haven't looked at the lastest tickless patches, so I'm not sure if my
> claims of simplicity are overblown, but especially as multiprocessor
> systems become more and more common it just seems wasteful to wakeup
> all the CPUs every so often only to have them find that they have
> nothing to do.
I guess George's experience in implementing tickless systems is that
it is more of an overhead for a general purpose OS like Linux. George?
--
Thanks and Regards,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs,
Bangalore, INDIA - 560017
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
