[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5121ECD9.3020300@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:56:57 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
CC: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de,
pjt@...gle.com, namhyung@...nel.org, efault@....de,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [patch v5 10/15] sched: packing transitory tasks in wake/exec
power balancing
On 02/18/2013 04:44 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Hello, Alex.
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 01:07:37PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> If the waked/execed task is transitory enough, it will has a chance to be
>> packed into a cpu which is busy but still has time to care it.
>> For powersaving policy, only the history util < 25% task has chance to
>> be packed, and for balance policy, only histroy util < 12.5% has chance.
>> If there is no cpu eligible to handle it, will use a idlest cpu in
>> leader group.
>
> After exec(), task's behavior may be changed, and history util may be
> changed, too. So, IMHO, exec balancing by history util is not good idea.
> How do you think about it?
>
sounds make sense. are there any objections?
--
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