| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:41:00 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> Cc: preeti <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, 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 Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:01:25AM -0700, 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. Is this really true? In a two-socket system I'd have thought the benefit of keeping socket 1 in package C3 outweighed the cost of keeping socket 0 awake for slightly longer. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org -- 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