[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pq0lu7ew.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:40:39 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] sched/fair: prefer a CPU in the "lowest" idle state
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> But AFAIK the number of states in cpuidle is usually less than 10 so maybe
>> we can change the weight then, but there's no promise...
>
> And I just got another case we should take care:
>
> group 0 cpu 0 cpu 1
> power index 8 power index 8
>
>
> group 1 cpu 2 cpu 3
> power index 0 load 15
>
> so load of group 0 is 16 and group 1 is 15, but group 0 is better...
Maybe it's not. The cpus in group 0 are in a lower power state so that
there will be a benefit to select cpu 2 from the power' PoV IMHO. Also
such a low power state has a longer exit latency so that we should
choose cpu2 to get a better performance and it's the basic idea of this
patchset I believe.
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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