Message-ID: <1338925967.2749.39.camel@twins>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] x86/cpu hotplug: Wake up offline CPU via mwait or
 nmi
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
        "Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-pm <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:52:47 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4FCE6341.3080105@linux.intel.com>
References: <1338833876-29721-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
	   <alpine.LFD.2.02.1206042203590.3086@ionos>
	   <1338842001.28282.135.camel@twins> <87zk8iioam.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	   <1338881971.28282.150.camel@twins>
	   <3E5A0FA7E9CA944F9D5414FEC6C7122007727023@ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com>
	  <1338912565.2749.9.camel@twins>
	   <3E5A0FA7E9CA944F9D5414FEC6C7122007728081@ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com>
	   <1338913190.2749.10.camel@twins>
	   <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F19300965@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com>
	  <1338918625.2749.29.camel@twins>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.02.1206052106440.3086@ionos> <1338925756.2749.36.camel@twins>
	 <4FCE6341.3080105@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1095
Lines: 23

On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 12:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 6/5/2012 12:49 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 21:43 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Vs. the interrupt/timer/other crap madness:
> >>
> >>  - We really don't want to have an interrupt balancer in the kernel
> >>    again, but we need a mechanism to prevent the user space balancer
> >>    trainwreck from ruining the power saving party.
> > 
> > What's wrong with having an interrupt balancer tied to the scheduler
> > which optimistically tries to avoid interrupting nohz/isolated/idle
> > cpus?
> 
> ideally threaded interrupts are like this.. we really should push for
> more usage of such and it all falls into place

They are nothing like that.. threaded interrupts still have a hardirq
kick-off that's ran on whatever interrupt the interrupt routing picks.
--
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/