| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20081022064738.05818670@infradead.org> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:47:38 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins.ml@...il.com> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: sched: deep power-saving states On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:42:52 -0400 Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins.ml@...il.com> wrote: > What I was thinking is that a simple mechanism to quantify the > power-state penalty would be to add those states as priority levels in > the cpupri namespace. E.g. We could substitute IDLE-RUNNING for IDLE, > and add IDLE-PS1, IDLE-PS2, .. IDLE-PSn, OTHER, RT1, .. RT99. This > means the scheduler would favor waking an IDLE-RUNNING core over an > IDLE-PS1-PSn, etc. The question in my mind is: can the power-states > be determined in a static fashion such that we know what value to > quantify the idle state before we enter it? Or is it more dynamic > (e.g. the longer it is in an MWAIT, the deeper the sleep gets). it's a little dynamic, but just assuming the worst will be a very good approximation of reality. And we know what we're getting into in that sense. -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.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