[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:39:45 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"alex.shi@...el.com" <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"len.brown@...el.com" <len.brown@...el.com>,
l.majewski@...sung.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 00/14] sched: packing tasks
> I think the scheduler simply wants to say: we expect to go idle for X
> ns, we want a guaranteed wakeup latency of Y ns -- go do your thing.
as long as Y normally is "large" or "infinity" that is ok ;-)
(a smaller Y will increase power consumption and decrease system performance)
> I think you also raised the point in that we do want some feedback as to
> the cost of waking up particular cores to better make decisions on which
> to wake. That is indeed so.
having a hardware driver give a prefered CPU ordering for wakes can indeed be useful.
(I'm doubtful that changing the recommendation for each idle is going to pay off,
but proof is in the pudding; there are certainly long term effects where this can help)
>
--
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