On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:13:13AM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:27:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:14:28AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > >+2. Many architectures will place dyntick-idle CPUs into deep sleep > > > >+ states, which further degrades from-idle transition latencies. > > > >+ > > > I think this part should just be deleted. > > > On x86, the deeper idle states are even used with non-tickless system (the break even times are > > > quite a bit less than even 1 msec). > > > I can't imagine that ARM is worse on this, at which point the statement above is highly dubious > > > > Interesting point, and I freely admit that I don't have full knowledge > > of the energy-consumption characteristics of all the architectures that > > Linux supports. Adding a few of the ARM guys on CC for their take, > > plus linux-rt-users. > > > > If there are no objections, I will delete point 2 above as Arjan suggests. > > What Arjan said will also be true for Linux on Power systems. I am not > sure "many architectures" would be the right way to characterize it. Very well, I count one non-objection to Arjan's suggestion. ;-) Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
