[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140703231950.GA4881@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 07:19:50 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Dietmar.Eggemann@....com" <Dietmar.Eggemann@....com>,
"pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 PATCH 00/23] sched: Energy cost model for energy-aware
scheduling
Hi Morten,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 12:25:47AM +0800, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> * Note that these energy savings are _not_ representative of what can be
> achieved on a true SMP platform where all cpus are equally
> energy-efficient. There should be benefit for SMP platforms as well,
> however, it will be smaller.
>
> The energy model led to consolidation of the short tasks on the A7
> cluster (more energy-efficient), while sysbench made use of all cpus as
> the A7s didn't have sufficient compute capacity to handle the five
> tasks.
Looks like this patchset is mainly for big.LITTLE? And can the patchset
actually replace Global Task Scheduling?
Thanks,
Yuyang
--
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