[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090514154316.GJ4853@dirshya.in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 21:13:16 +0530
From: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vatsa <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
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 v2 0/2] Saving power by cpu evacuation
sched_max_capacity_pct=n
* Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> [2009-05-14 17:06:32]:
> > I think 'scheduler throttling' is good so that we avoid the term 'CPU
> > throttling' or core throttling. I had named this cpu evacuation or
> > core evacuation just to avoid confusion with hardware throttling.
>
> Evacuation sounds good, although shouldn't it be package or
> socket evacuation?
Lets start with 'core evacuation' since that seems to be the lowest
granularity on a threaded system. We certainly want the framework to
provide socket/package and node evacuation on much larger systems.
--Vaidy
--
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