[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <502E90F3.2000702@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:44:03 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
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 8/17/2012 11:41 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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.
not on Intel
you can't enter package c3 either until every one is down.
(e.g. memory controller must stay on etc etc)
--
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