[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52EFA9D3.1030601@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 06:38:11 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
CC: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Preeti Murthy <preeti.lkml@...il.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] idle: store the idle state index in the struct
rq
On 2/3/2014 4:54 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>
> I'm therefore not convinced that idle state index is the right thing to
> give the scheduler. Using a cost metric would be better in my
> opinion.
I totally agree with this, and we may need two separate cost metrics
1) A latency driven one
2) A performance impact on
first one is pretty much the exit latency related time, sort of a "expected time to first instruction"
(currently menuidle has the 99.999% worst case number, which is not useful for this, but is a first
approximation). This is obviously the dominating number for expected-short running tasks
second on is more of a "is there any cache/TLB left or is it flushed" kind of metric. It's more tricky
to compute, since what is the cost of an empty cache (or even a cache migration) after all....
.... but I suspect it's in part what the scheduler will care about more for expected-long running tasks.
--
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