* Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> [050512 11:01]:
> 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?
At least then it would be event driven rather than polling approach.
Tony
-
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]
