[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.4.18 scheduler bugs

On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Alan Cox wrote:

> > > moment work for them becomes available. I see no reason why an idle cpu
> > > should be forced to remain idle until the next tick, nor why fixing that
> > > should be considered `broken'.
> >
> > performance. IPIs are expensive.
> On a PIII I can see this being the case, especially as they dont power
> save on hlt nowdays.

it's an option, and the default is to use the hlt instruction. The main
reason is to let Linux save power - and those who need that final
performance edge (and it's measurable), can enable it. HTL still uses less
power than the tight idle loop.

> [...] But on the Athlon the IPI isnt going down a little side channel
> between cpus.

but even in the Athlon case an IPI is still an IRQ entry, which will add
at least 200 cycles or more to the idle wakeup latency.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.061 / U:14.680 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site