Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752120Ab0G3H1L (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jul 2010 03:27:11 -0400 Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.143]:26310 "EHLO ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751303Ab0G3H1J (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jul 2010 03:27:09 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAHEbUkx5LclT/2dsb2JhbACgF3K/BIU5BA Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:27:04 +1000 From: Nick Piggin To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] Remove the per cpu tick skew Message-ID: <20100730072704.GA9960@amd> References: <20100727210210.58d3118c@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100727210210.58d3118c@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2227 Lines: 60 On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:02:10PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Hi, > > the following patch is a win for power management on x86.... > ... but since this touches generic code.. are there any > other architectures that would be negatively affected by this? > > > > Subject: [patch] Remove the per cpu tick skew > > Historically, Linux has tried to make the regular timer tick on the various > CPUs not happen at the same time, to avoid contention on xtime_lock. > > Nowadays, with the tickless kernel, this contention no longer happens > since time keeping and updating are done differently. In addition, > this skew is actually hurting power consumption in a measurable > way on many-core systems. Question, how much of a win is it? What does it do that tickless idle does not, can you explain? > > Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven > > --- linux.trees.git/kernel/time/tick-sched.c~ 2010-07-16 09:40:50.000000000 -0400 > +++ linux.trees.git/kernel/time/tick-sched.c 2010-07-26 11:18:51.138003329 -0400 > @@ -780,7 +780,6 @@ > { > struct tick_sched *ts = &__get_cpu_var(tick_cpu_sched); > ktime_t now = ktime_get(); > - u64 offset; > > /* > * Emulate tick processing via per-CPU hrtimers: > @@ -790,10 +789,6 @@ > > /* Get the next period (per cpu) */ > hrtimer_set_expires(&ts->sched_timer, tick_init_jiffy_update()); > - offset = ktime_to_ns(tick_period) >> 1; > - do_div(offset, num_possible_cpus()); > - offset *= smp_processor_id(); > - hrtimer_add_expires_ns(&ts->sched_timer, offset); > > for (;;) { > hrtimer_forward(&ts->sched_timer, now, tick_period); > > -- > Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre > For development, discussion and tips for power savings, > visit http://www.lesswatts.org > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- 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/