[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51C47377.2000208@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:38:31 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
CC: David Lang <david@...g.hm>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"alex.shi@...el.com" <alex.shi@...el.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"efault@....de" <efault@....de>, "pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"len.brown@...el.com" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: power-efficient scheduling design
On 6/21/2013 1:50 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>> ypically.
> A hint when a task is moved to a new cpu is too late if the migration
> shouldn't have happened at all. If the scheduler knows that the cpu is
> able to switch to a higher p-state it can decide to wait for the p-state
> change instead of migrating the task and waking up another cpu.
>
oops sorry I misread your mail (lack of early coffee I suppose)
I can see your point of having a thing for "did we ask for all the performance
we could ask for" prior to doing a load balance (although, for power efficiency,
if you have two tasks that could run in parallel, it's usually better to
run them in parallel... so likely we should balance anyway)
--
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