[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1326120367.2442.84.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:46:07 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Youquan Song <youquan.song@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
len.brown@...el.com, anhua.xu@...el.com, chaohong.guo@...el.com,
Youquan Song <youquan.song@...ux.intel.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,sched: Fix sched_smt_power_savings totally broken
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 15:29 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> I'm also using sched_mc level for doing powersaving load balance on
> ARM platform and we have real benefits.
Right, I've never said that power aware balancing was without merit, I
know it matters (quite a lot for some).
> We might modify the way we choose between power or performance mode
> because it's not always a matter of gathering or spreading tasks on
> cpus but until we found a best interface it's the way to enable
> powersaving mode
Sure, it was the only interface available.
But I really want to get rid of the topology based knobs we have now,
preferably I even want to get rid of the multi-value thing.
pjt still needs to post his linsched rework *poke* *poke*, that should
give a good basis to rework most of this without regressing the world
and then some.
But even without that I think we can do better than we do currently.
--
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