[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090427055451.GF13342@in.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:24:51 +0530
From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vatsa <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arun Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] Saving power by cpu evacuation using
sched_mc=n
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 05:52:16AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Regarding the values for 2...5 - is the AvgPower column time
> normalized or workload normalized?
>
> If it's time normalized then it appears there's no power win here at
> all: we'd be better off by throttling the workload directly (by
> injecting sleeps or something like that), right?
Energy savings with this will depend on the workload running. We have
seen transactional workloads where taking off a few cores has almost
no impact on throughput or response time.
Thanks
Dipankar
--
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