On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 05:46:50PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > I have been digging around the vmstat kthreads a bit, and it appears to > > me that there is no reason to run a given CPU's vmstat kthread unless > > that CPU spends some time executing in the kernel. If correct, this > > observation indicates that one way to safely reduce OS jitter due to the > > vmstat kthreads is to prevent them from executing on a given CPU if that > > CPU has been executing in usermode since the last time that this CPU's > > vmstat kthread executed. > > Right and we have patches to that effect. Even better! > > Does this seem like a sensible course of action, or did I miss something > > when I went through the code? > > Nope you are right on. > > Gilad Ben-Yossef has been posting patches that address this issue in Feb > 2012. Ccing him. Can we see your latest work, Gilead? Is it this one? https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/3/269 Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>