linux-kernel - Re: [patch v7 0/21] sched: power aware scheduling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:16:55 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, pjt@...gle.com,
	namhyung@...nel.org, efault@....de, morten.rasmussen@....com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, len.brown@...el.com,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, jkosina@...e.cz,
	clark.williams@...il.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
	keescook@...omium.org, mgorman@...e.de, riel@...hat.com,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v7 0/21] sched: power aware scheduling

On 04/15/2013 02:04 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 04/14/2013 11:59 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 09:28:50AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> >> Even some scenario the total energy cost more, at least the avg watts
>>> >> dropped in that scenarios.
>> > 
>> > Ok, what's wrong with x = 32 then? So basically if you're looking at
>> > avg watts, you don't want to have more than 16 threads, otherwise
>> > powersaving sucks on that particular uarch and platform. Can you say
>> > that for all platforms out there?
> The cpu freq boost make the avg watts higher with x = 32, and also make
> higher power efficiency. We can disable cpu freq boost for this if we
> want lower power consumption all time.
> But for my understanding, the power efficient is better way to save power.

BTW, lowest p-state, no freq boost and plus this powersaving policy will
give the lowest power consumption.

And I need to say again. the powersaving policy just effect on system
under utilisation. when system goes busy, it won't has effect.
performance oriented policy will take over balance behaviour.

-- 
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/