[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <502D9E78.5010403@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:29:28 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
CC: preeti <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.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 10:01 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> *Power policy*:
>>
>> So how is power policy different? As Peter says,'pack more than spread
>> more'.
>
> this is ... a dubiously general statement.
>
> for good power, at least on Intel cpus, you want to spread. Parallelism is efficient.
>
> the only thing you do not want to do, is wake cpus up for
> tasks that only run extremely briefly (think "100 usec" or less).
It's a very important and valuable info!
Just want to know how you get this? From CS cost or cache/TLB refill cost?
>
> so maybe the balance interval is slightly different, or more, you don't balance tasks that
> historically ran only for brief periods
>
>
--
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