lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/2] ksm: provide support to use deferrable timers for scanner thread
I don't mean to divert the thread too much. But just one suggestion 
offered by Harshad.

Why can't we stop invoking more of a KSM scanner thread when we are
saturating from savings ? But again, to check whether savings are
saturated or not, we may still want to rely upon timers and we have to
wake the CPUs up from IDLE state.

>> here. Can't we create a new (timer) infrastructure that does the right
>> thing? Surely this isn't the only such case.
>
> A sleep-walking timer, that goes to sleep in one bed, but may wake in
> another; and defers while beds are empty? I'd be happy to try using
> that for KSM if it already existed, and no doubt Chintan would too

This is interesting for sure :)

>
> But I don't think KSM presents a very good case for developing it.
> I think KSM's use of a sleep_millisecs timer is really just an apology
> for the amount of often wasted work that it does, and dates from before
> we niced it down 5. I prefer the idea of a KSM which waits on activity
> amongst the restricted set of tasks it is tracking: as this patch tries.
>
> But my preference may be naive: doing lots of unnecessary work doesn't
> matter as much as waking cpus from deep sleep.

This is exactly the preference we are looking for. But yes, cannot be
generalized for all.

>
>>
>> I know both RCU and some NOHZ_FULL muck already track when the system is
>> completely idle. This is yet another case of that.
>
> Hugh


--
Chintan Pandya

QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-11 10:41    [W:0.107 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site