On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:03:07AM +0200, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote: > On Sun, 7 May 2023, Andrea Righi wrote: > > > On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 10:08:52AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > [ Added Anna-Maria who is doing some timer work as well ] > > > > > > On Sun, 7 May 2023 11:07:00 +0200 > > > Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Now, I think what is really happening here is that you are somewhat > > > simulating the results that Anna-Maria has indirectly. That is, you > > > just prevent an idle CPU from waking up to handle interrupts when not > > > needed. > > > > > > Anna-Maria, > > > > > > Do you have some patches that Andrea could test with? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -- Steve > > > > Thanks for looking at this (and I'm happy to help Anna-Maria with any > > test). > > I posted v6 of the queue - but forgot to add you to cc list. Here is the > current version: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230510072817.116056-1-anna-maria@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > I have to mention, that there is still the issue with the fair scheduler > which wakes up the CPU where the process_timeout() timer was enqueued, > because it assumes that context is still cache hot. > > Thanks, > > Anna-Maria OK, will take a look, thanks! -Andrea
