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 13:39:36 +0800 From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> 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 08/16/2012 01:31 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:03:32PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> On 08/16/2012 12:19 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> Are there workloads in which "power" might provide more performance than >>> "performance"? If so, don't use these terms. >> >> Power scheme should no chance has better performance in design. > > Power will tend to concentrate processes on packages, yes. while performance > 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. What if two cooperating > processes gain from being on the same package and sharing cache > locality? > -- 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