[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50FF3090.1090608@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:36:32 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
CC: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, namhyung@...nel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/22] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load
and cpu_avg_load_per_task
On 01/22/2013 05:52 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your suggestions and example, Mike!
>> I just can't understand the your last words here, Sorry. what the
>> detailed concern of you on 'both performance profiles with either
>> metric'? Could you like to give your preferred solutions?
>
> Hm.. I'll try rephrasing. Any power saving gain will of necessity be
> paid for in latency currency. I don't have a solution other than make a
> button, let the user decide whether history influences fast path task
> placement or not. Any other decision maker will get it wrong.
Um, if no other objection, I'd like to move the runnable load only used
for power friendly policy -- for this patchset, they are 'powersaving'
and 'balance', Can I?
>
> -Mike
>
--
Thanks Alex
--
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