Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
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).
Waking it up at fork or exec time might be doable, and having a busy CPU
wake up other CPUs wouldn't add too much complexity, would it?
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?
The latest patches seem to do tick skipping rather than wholesale
ticklessness. Admittedly, the latter is a more invasive change, but one
that may end up being simpler in the long run. But maybe George did a
design like that in the past and rejected it?
Jesse
-
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]
