![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > > >>>The way to solve this was to set >>> idle=poll. The original patch I sent was to allow the user to change to >>> idle=poll dynamically. This way they could switch to the poll_idle and >>> run there tests (requiring tsc not to drift) and then switch back to the >>> default idle to save on electricity. >> >>Use gettimeofday()? >> >>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] - while it could be turned off if the > system has been idle for some time. E.g. cpufreqd could sample idle time > and turn on/off idle=poll. High-performance setups could enable it all > the time. > > as long as it can be done with zero-cost, i dont see why Steven's patch > wouldnt be a plus for us. It's a performance thing, and having runtime > switches for seemless performance features cannot be bad. > Why not just slightly cleanup and extend (eg. to ACPI) the hlt_counter thingy that many architectures already have? Nick -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-11-29 07:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||