[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5034D878.1000305@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 06:02:48 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
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,
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 8/21/2012 10:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 17:02 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see actual numbers and evidence on a wide range of workloads
>> the spread/don't spread thing is even measurable given that you've also
>> got to factor in effects like completing faster and turning everything
>> off. I'd *really* like to see such evidence on a laptop,which is your
>> one cited case it might work.
>
> For my dinky dual core laptop, I suspect you're right, but for a more
> powerful laptop, I'd expect spread/don't to be noticeable.
yeah if you don't spread, you will waste some power.
but.. current linux behavior is to spread.
so we can only make it worse.
>
> Yeah, hard numbers would be nice to see.
>
> If I had a powerful laptop, I'd kill irq balancing, and all but periodic
> load balancing, and expect to see a positive result.
I'd expect to see a negative result ;-)
--
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