Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL Pulled Into Linux 3.10 Kernel

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,378

    Default CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL Pulled Into Linux 3.10 Kernel

    Phoronix: CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL Pulled Into Linux 3.10 Kernel

    Support for "full dynticks" has been accepted into the mainline Linux 3.10 kernel...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM2NTM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Three cycles of preparing work and finally a request for a pull containing relatively untested patches.

    So I haven't actually found a real load where any of this makes a noticeable *difference*.
    Quite the risk if you ask me...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexilion View Post
    Three cycles of preparing work and finally a request for a pull containing relatively untested patches.



    Quite the risk if you ask me...
    Did someone say that you had to configure your kernel using it? What's so dangerous about it? I'm sure all of the 'stable' distros are going to stay away for a couple years anyway.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vash63 View Post
    Did someone say that you had to configure your kernel using it?
    No, did I mention that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vash63 View Post
    What's so dangerous about it?
    Many regressions, few gains.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vash63 View Post
    I'm sure all of the 'stable' distros are going to stay away for a couple years anyway.
    Causing less testing coverage since there are now multiple ways to configure a single kernel.

    Just my opinion though.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    11

    Default

    This feature is a major evolutionary step in modern operating system kernel development.

    I am happy to see that the Linux kernel developers embrace new technologies. We don't need a copycat kernel just as well as we don't need a copycat desktop environment. As was said erlier, the common user of the kernel is not affected at all by introducing this new feature until benefits for the general usage will surface and regressions are ruled out.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,152

    Default Asynchronous CPU?

    Would this be useful on a clockless asynchronous CPU?

    I wish there were more asynchronous processors on the market, it seems like an interesting idea...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vash63 View Post
    Did someone say that you had to configure your kernel using it? What's so dangerous about it? I'm sure all of the 'stable' distros are going to stay away for a couple years anyway.
    Right so why pull it? Unless it were to replace the old one, or if the developers of it could point out a particular task where this worked well, then this wasn't worth pulling.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Right so why pull it? Unless it were to replace the old one, or if the developers of it could point out a particular task where this worked well, then this wasn't worth pulling.
    To make it available for testing.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJenbo View Post
    To make it available for testing.
    No...........

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexilion View Post
    Causing less testing coverage since there are now multiple ways to configure a single kernel.

    Just my opinion though.
    Last time I built a kernel, there were thousands of configuration options One more is hardly gonna hurt...

    Whether or not a particular option is used depends on the distro/target audience. As the article mentions this option is currently experimental (the kernel has always contained a few of those, you'll only see them if you tick "show experimental stuff"). Unless this option offers improvements for the average user, most distros will keep clear anyway. My guess: You'll not see this option in action any time soon, unless you build your own kernel.

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Would this be useful on a clockless asynchronous CPU?
    The kernel's ticks and the CPU's clock rate are not related. A kernel that wakes up periodically potentially uses more power, whether the CPU is synchronous or asynchronous. Also, by "more" you mean "any relevant to the average user at all", right?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •