[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48FF3321.4060809@novell.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:05:21 -0400
From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sched: deep power-saving states
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 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.
>
Ok, but if we just assume the worst case always, how do I differentiate
between, say, IDLE-RUNNING and IDLE-PSn? If I assign them all to
IDLE-PSn apriori its no better than the basic single IDLE state we
support today. Or am I misunderstanding you?
-Greg
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (258 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists