[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <502C8798.8060807@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:39:36 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
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>
Subject: Re: [discussion]sched: a rough proposal to enable power saving in
scheduler
On 08/16/2012 01:31 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:03:32PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 08/16/2012 12:19 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> Are there workloads in which "power" might provide more performance than
>>> "performance"? If so, don't use these terms.
>>
>> Power scheme should no chance has better performance in design.
>
> Power will tend to concentrate processes on packages,
yes.
while performance
> will tend to split them across packages?
No, there is still has balance idea in this rough proposal. If a domain
is not overload, it is better to left old tasks unchanged. I should say,
current scheduler is the 'performance' trend scheme.
What if two cooperating
> processes gain from being on the same package and sharing cache
> locality?
>
--
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