* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:07:37 +0100 > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > * Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I'd also suggest to not do that rather ugly > > > > enable_timer_migration per-cpu variable, but simply reuse > > > > the existing nohz.load_balancer as a target CPU. > > > > > > This is a good idea to automatically bias the timers. But > > > this nohz.load_balancer is a very fast moving target and we > > > will need some heuristics to estimate overall system idleness > > > before moving the timers. > > > > > > I would agree that the power saving load balancer has a good > > > view of the system and can potentially guide the timer biasing > > > framework. > > > > Yeah, it's a fast moving target, but it already concentrates > > the load somewhat. > > > > I wonder if the real answer for this isn't to have timers be > considered schedulable-entities and have the regular scheduler > decide where they actually run. hm, not sure - it's a bit heavy for that. Ingo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
