Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: CFS Bandwidth Control - Test results of cgroups tasks pinned vs unpinnede | | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | | Date | Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:19:39 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 09:45 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> [2011-09-12 14:35:43]: > > > Of course it does.. and I bet you can improve that slightly if you > > manage to fix some of the numerical nightmares that live in the cgroup > > load-balancer (Paul, care to share your WIP?) > > Booting with "nohz=off" also helps significantly. > > With nohz=on, average idle time (over 1 min) is 10.3% > With nohz=off, average idle time (over 1 min) is 3.9%
So we should put the cpufreq/idle governor into the nohz/idle path, it already tries to predict the idle duration in order to pick a C state, that same prediction should be used to determine if stopping the tick is worth it.
This has come up previously, but I can't quite recollect in what context.
|  |