Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:49:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:48:53 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:14485 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:48:38 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:42:33 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: mingo@elte.hu To: Alan Cox Cc: Joe Korty , Marcelo Tosatti , Linus Torvalds , Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.18 scheduler bugs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Ingo - 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/