[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <502CC454.6070405@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:58:44 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: preeti <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [discussion]sched: a rough proposal to enable power saving in
scheduler
On 08/16/2012 02:53 PM, preeti wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> From what I have understood so far,I try to summarise pin pointed
> differences between the performance and power policies as found
> relevant to the scheduler-load balancing mechanism.Any thoughts?
Currently, the load_balance trigger will be called in timer for periodic
tick, or dynamic tick.
In periodic tick, the cpu is waked, so do load_balance is not cost much.
But in dynamic tick. we'd better do power policy suitable scenario
checking in nohz_kick_needed(), and then do nohz_balancer_kick on least
but non-idle cpu if possible. that reduce the idle cpu waking chance.
Any comments?
--
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