Andi Kleen wrote:
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> writes:
If it's just for some sort of instrumentation, run NR_CPUS instances
of a niced-down busyloop, pin each one to a different CPU? That way
the idle function doesn't get called at all..
idle=poll is also frequently done for performance reasons [it reduces
idle wakeup latency by 10 usecs]
And it's obsolete on CPUs with monitor/mwait.
There are some platforms for example IBM ZPro Xeon based machines where
monitor/mwait seems to trigger some kind of SMM and introduce horrible latencies.
With idle=poll ZPros show pretty good worst case latencies, in the order of 10usec
(tested with RTAI/Fusion). With default idle (ie mwait) even average latency is in
hundreds of milliseconds.
You might argue that it's a bug in the their HW design or something but as it stands
today I wouldn't say that monitor/mwait obsoletes idle=poll.
Also IMO saying that CPU will run too hot with idle=poll is basically saying that those
CPUs cannot be used for simulations and stuff which run flat out for days (months actually).
Which is obviously not true (again speaking from experience :)).
Max
-
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]
