| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 06:45:46 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [discussion]sched: a rough proposal to enable power saving in scheduler On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:39:36PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > On 08/16/2012 01:31 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > will tend to split them across packages? > > > No, there is still has balance idea in this rough proposal. If a domain > is not overload, it is better to left old tasks unchanged. I should say, > current scheduler is the 'performance' trend scheme. The current process isn't necessarily ideal for all workloads - that's one of the reasons for letting workspace modify process affinity. I agree that the "performance" mode will tend to provide better performance than the "power" mode for an arbitrary workload, but if there are workloads that would perform better in "power" then it's a poor naming scheme. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org -- 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