[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:43:39 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vatsa <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
David Collier-Brown <davecb@....com>,
Tim Connors <tconnors@...ro.swin.edu.au>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
"gregory.haskins" <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/5] sched: nominate preferred wakeup cpu
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 00:03 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> When the system utilisation is low and more cpus are idle,
> then the process waking up from sleep should prefer to
> wakeup an idle cpu from semi-idle cpu package (multi core
> package) rather than a completely idle cpu package which
> would waste power.
>
> Use the sched_mc balance logic in find_busiest_group() to
> nominate a preferred wakeup cpu.
>
> This info can be sored in appropriate sched_domain, but
> updating this info in all copies of sched_domain is not
> practical. For now lets try with a per-cpu variable
> pointing to a common storage in partition sched domain
> attribute. Global variable may not work in partitioned
> sched domain case.
Would it make sense to place the preferred_wakeup_cpu stuff in the
root_domain structure we already have?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists