On 2017/7/18 23:20, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> 2) for rcu idle enter/exit, I measured the details which Paul provided, and >> the result matches with what I have measured before, nothing notable found. >> But it still makes more sense if we can make rcu idle enter/exit hooked with >> tick off. (it's possible other workloads behave differently) > > Again, assuming that RCU is informed of CPUs in the kernel, regardless > of whether or not the tick is on that that point in time. > Yeah, I see, no problem for a normal idle.
But for a short idle, we want to return to the task ASAP. Even though RCU cost is not notable, it would still be better for me if we can save some cycles in idle entry and idle exit. Do we have any problem if we skip RCU idle enter/exit under a fast idle scenario? My understanding is, if tick is not stopped, then we don't need inform RCU in idle path, it can be informed in irq exit. Thanks, -Aubrey
