[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1367315763.4616.93.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:56:03 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, pjt@...gle.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, 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 Tue, 2013-04-30 at 11:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 11:35 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 10:41 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > > Which are the workloads where 'powersaving' mode hurts workload
> > > performance measurably?
> >
> > Well, it'll lose throughput any time there's parallel execution
> > potential but it's serialized instead.. using average will inevitably
> > stack tasks sometimes, but that's its goal. Hackbench shows it.
>
> (but that consolidation can be a winner too, and I bet a nickle it would
> be for a socket sized pgbench run)
(belay that, was thinking of keeping all tasks on a single node, but
it'll likely stack the whole thing on a CPU or two, if so, it'll hurt)
--
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