On Fri, 19 Dec 2014, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 22:12:57 +0100 (CET)
> Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Dec 2014, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > > OK I agree, also as I mentioned earlier, Peter already has a patch
> > > for consolidated idle loop and remove tick_nohz_idle_enter/exit
> > > call from powerclamp driver. I have been working on a few tweaks to
> > > maintain the functionality and efficiency with the consolidated
> > > idle loop. We can apply the patches on top of yours.
> >
> > No. This is equally wrong as I pointed out before. The 'unified' idle
> > loop is still fake and just pretending to be idle.
> >
> In terms of efficiency, the consolidated idle loop will allow turning
> off sched tick during idle injection period. If we just take out the
> tick_nohz_idle_xxx call, the effectiveness of powerclamp is going down
> significantly. I am not arguing the design but from fixing regression
> perspective or short term solution.
There is no perspective. Period.
Its violates every rightful assumption of the nohz_IDLE_* code and
just ever worked by chance. There is so much subtle wreckage lurking
there that the only sane solution is to forbid it. End of story.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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/
