[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271688543.1488.253.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:49:03 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched: fix capacity calculations for SMT4
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 07:34 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > Are there any numbers available on how much they gain? It might be worth
> > to stick in real numbers instead of this alleged 15%.
>
> I get some gain numbers but obviously the workloads makes a huge
> difference. From a scheduler perspective, I assume an
> average/representative gain is best rather than an optimistic or
> pessimistic one?
Yeah, average would be best.
> We'll have different gains for SMT2 and SMT4, so we could change the
> gain dynamically based on which SMT mode we are in. Does that seem like
> something we should add as an arch hook?
That's the sort of thing you can use arch_scale_smt_power() for. But be
weary to not fall into the same trap I did with x86, where I confused
actual gain with capacity (When idle the actual gain is 0, but the
capacity is not).
--
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