On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:13:13AM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:27:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:14:28AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > >+2. Many architectures will place dyntick-idle CPUs into deep sleep
> > > >+ states, which further degrades from-idle transition latencies.
> > > >+
> > > I think this part should just be deleted.
> > > On x86, the deeper idle states are even used with non-tickless system
> > > (the break even times are
> > > quite a bit less than even 1 msec).
> > > I can't imagine that ARM is worse on this, at which point the statement
> > > above is highly dubious
> >
> > Interesting point, and I freely admit that I don't have full knowledge
> > of the energy-consumption characteristics of all the architectures that
> > Linux supports. Adding a few of the ARM guys on CC for their take,
> > plus linux-rt-users.
> >
> > If there are no objections, I will delete point 2 above as Arjan suggests.
>
> What Arjan said will also be true for Linux on Power systems. I am not
> sure "many architectures" would be the right way to characterize it.
Very well, I count one non-objection to Arjan's suggestion. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
