[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1353951352.6276.43.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:52 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, pjt@...gle.com,
paul.mckenney@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de, tj@...nel.org,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, venki@...gle.com, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, Arvind.Chauhan@....com,
linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org,
pdsw-power-team@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 Resend 0/4] Create sched_select_cpu() and use it for
workqueues and timers
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 09:03 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> If I understand correctly (though also suffering turkey OD), the idea is
> to offload work to more energy-efficient CPUs.
This is determined by a CPU that isn't running the idle task? Is it
because a CPU that just woke up may be running at a lower freq, and thus
not as efficient? But pushing off to another CPU may cause cache misses
as well. Wouldn't that also be a factor in efficiencies, if a CPU is
stalled waiting for memory to be loaded?
I should also ask the obvious. Has these patches shown real world
efficiencies or is this just a theory? Do these patches actually improve
battery life when applied?
Just asking.
-- Steve
--
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