On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:25:43AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:40:14 +0100
Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On top of which, the implementation had issues; now I know you're the
blinder kind of person that disregards everything not in his immediate
interest, but if you'd looked at the patch you'd have seen he'd added
code the idle entry path, which will slow down every single to-idle
transition.

Isn't to-idle a bit bloated anyway? Or has that been fixed. I know
there was some issues with idle_balance() which can add latency to
wakeups. idle_balance() is also in the to-idle path.

Yes it is too heavy as is, but just stacking more crap in just because
its already expensive seems to wrong way around.