On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:29:37AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Yes, I actually like that part a lot although I do wish the idle check > was inlined. > > What I'm wondering is whether the kinda out-of-band decision via > sched_select_cpu() is justified given that it can and is likely to go > through full scheduling decision anyway. For timer, we don't have > that, so it makes sense. For work items, it's a bit different. > > To rephrase, *if* the scheduler can't already make proper decisions > regarding power consumption on an idlish system, maybe it can be > improved to do so? It could as well be that this CPU selection is > special enough that it's just better to keep it separate as this > patchset proposes. This is something up to the scheduler people. > Peter, Ingo, what do you guys think?
Ping. Peter, Ingo? Viresh, would it be difficult to make another measurement of the same workload with the said workqueues converted to unbound? I think that would at least provide a nice reference point. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
