DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=YH7ikyi5xKRU3Rg8/4QgSXBBAlOSBueVir6rX7l3IAT8sRibKRBKneUAYOQRz4nUzJ
         vvqusa48z7/m3qVk0DpZlw3HuJhwWtHmEnwqQKbdSvJmLFXn7iU7AUhqEqj5AUw8SdX2
         00OvyE8wZmiCKuo/1S0yKGBDp6vGNgXYzExf8=
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:52:44 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Anton Blanchard <anton@au1.ibm.com>,
        Tim Pepper <lnxninja@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/15] nohz_task: Avoid nohz task cpu as non-idle
 timer target
Message-ID: <20101221135240.GD1750@nowhere>
References: <1292858662-5650-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1292858662-5650-3-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1292860078.5021.6.camel@laptop>
 <20101221001354.GG1715@nowhere>
 <1292917847.5021.180.camel@laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1292917847.5021.180.camel@laptop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1745
Lines: 39

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 08:50:47AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 01:13 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 04:47:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 16:24 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > Unbound timers are preferably targeted for non idle cpu. If
> > > > possible though, prioritize idle cpus over nohz task cpus,
> > > > because the main point of nohz task is to avoid unnecessary
> > > > timer interrupts.
> > > 
> > > Oh is it?
> > > 
> > > I'd very much expect the cpu that arms the timer to get the interrupt. I
> > > mean, if the task doesn't want to get interrupted by timers,
> > > _DON'T_USE_TIMERS_ to begin with.
> > > 
> > > So no, don't much like this at all.
> > 
> > I suspect TIMER_NOT_PINNED has been introduced to save some power by
> > avoiding to wake up idle cpus.
> > 
> > This is used by mod_timer(), schedule_timeout(), mod_timer_pending()
> > So that's widely used and removing that could have a deep impact on
> > power.
> 
> Yeah so? Who said task_nohz had to have the bestest power savings
> around? Its not a laptop feature by any means. Simply disable the thing:
> echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/timer_migration, or better yet, teach it about
> your cpuset constraints and avoid it migrating timers into your set and
> keep timers pinned within the set.

Right.

So I'll start by deactivating this through /proc/sys/kernel/timer_migration
and care about making it more automatically later.
--
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/