On 1 October 2012 06:02, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > It isn't about the CPU being actually idle?
No. Being idle only from scheduler's perspective. :) > Also, if it's only about timers, shouldn't it be enough to implement > it for timer and delayed_work? What if we need a timer, which must re-arm itself + schedule a work? delayed_work will not be sufficient in that case, and we would need to use normal work. If i am not wrong, there can be other future users of this routine too. @Vincent: Can you please comment on this? > It would be great if you explain what you're trying to achieve how. I > can't tell what you're aiming for and why that would be beneficial > from these submissions. Following slides are implemented by Vincent and presented during LPC. Please have a look at them, they explain the problem statement well: http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/lpc2012-sched-timer-workqueue.pdf Specifically slides: 12 & 19. There aren't too many users with this behavior, but even a single user will be sufficient not to let the cpu get idle at all. And that will result in less power saving. -- viresh _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
