[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51A85E0A.5070806@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 16:23:38 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
CC: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, efault@....de, pjt@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, len.brown@...el.com, corbet@....net,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC] Comparison of power-efficient scheduling patch sets
On 05/31/2013 09:17 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> > Kernel: 3.9
>> >
>> > Patch sets:
>> > rlb-v4: sched: use runnable load based balance (Alex Shi)
>> > <https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/27/13>
> Thanks for the valuable comparison!
>
> The runnable load balance target is performance. It is still try to
> disperse tasks to as much as possible CPUs. :)
> The latest v7 version remove the 6th patch(wake_affine change) in v4.
> and plus fix a slept time double counting issue, and remove
> blocked_load_avg in tg load.
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1498988
Even the rlb patch set target is performance, Maybe the power benefit is
due to better balancing?
Anyway I appreciate if you like to test the latest v7 version. :)
https://github.com/alexshi/power-scheduling.git runnablelb
--
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