[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAORVsuXBOHrhx=AFVgdC01=1YFfBgCDpwBH_cn7LBujLfc0rcg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:50:13 +0200
From: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@...oldbits.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux@....linux.org.uk, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rob.herring@...xeda.com,
linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/4] ARM: topology: Update cpu_power according to DT information
Hi Amit, Peter,
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 18:14 +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>> Various discussions around power-aware scheduling have amplified the
>> need for the scheduler to have some knowledge of DVFS. This would then
>> require the scheduler to track 'cpu_power' ( = max power) and perhaps
>> a new variable 'current_power' that is changed by the DVFS framework.
>
> Note that capacity is in fact a better term -- not to be confused with
> the capacity as currently in use within the load-balancer. Luckily
> there's no way to read that an not be confused.. uhmm :-)
>>
>> The first goal, though, is to make sure that the scheduler can handle
>> different cpu_power values due to asymmetric cores.
>
> I would think the very first goal was to do a simple packing balancer
> before doing silly things with asymmetric setups.. but what do I know.
Sure! First things first ;p
Thanks for the details!
Regards,
Jean
--
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