lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RCU vs NOHZ
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:56:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:08:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:36:24AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > > How has this been tried; and why did the energy cost go up? Is this
> > > > because the offload thread ends up waking up the CPU we just put to
> > > > sleep?
> > >
> > > Because doing the additional work consumes energy. I am not clear on
> > > exactly what you are asking for here, given the limitations of the tools
> > > that measure energy consumption.
> >
> > What additional work? Splicing the cpu pending list onto another list
> > with or without atomic op barely qualifies for work. The main point is
> > making sure the pending list isn't in the way of going (deep) idle.
>
> Very good. Send a patch.
>
> After some time, its successor might correctly handle lock/memory
> contention, CPU hotplug, presumed upcoming runtime changes in CPUs'
> housekeeping status, frequent idle entry/exit, grace period begin/end,
> quiet embedded systems, and so on.
>
> Then we can see if it actually reduces power consumption.

Another approach is to runtime-offload CPUs that have been mostly idle,
and switch back to deoffloaded during busy periods.

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-30 16:50    [W:0.047 / U:1.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site