[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <715.1271709945@neuling.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:45:45 +1000
From: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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
In message <1271688543.1488.253.camel@...top> you wrote:
> 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.
Ok.
> > 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).
Oops, yes of course :-)
<from before>
> Hrmm, my brain seems muddled but I might have another solution, let me
> ponder this for a bit..
Let me know if/when you come up this solution or if I can help.
Mikey
--
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