[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B578731.2060709@austin.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:44:01 -0600
From: Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: ego@...ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc: implement arch_scale_smt_power for Power7
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 14:04 -0600, Joel Schopp wrote:
>
>> On Power7 processors running in SMT4 mode with 2, 3, or 4 idle threads
>> there is performance benefit to idling the higher numbered threads in
>> the core.
>>
>
> So this is an actual performance improvement, not only power savings?
>
Yes.
>
>
> And you just wrecked x86 ;-)
>
> It has an smt_power implementation that tries to measure smt gains using
> aperf/mperf, trouble is that this represents the actual performance not
> the capacity. This has the problem that when idle it represents 0
> capacity and will not attract work.
>
> Coming up with something that actually works there is on the todo list,
> I was thinking perhaps temporal maximums from !idle.
>
> So if you want to go with this, you'll need to stub out
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sched.c
>
OK. Guess I now will have a 3 patch series, with a patch to stub out
the x86 broken version.
Care to take Gautham's bugfix patch (patch 1/2) now, since it just fixes
a bug? You'll need it if you ever try to make the x86 broken version work.
--
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