lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 7 Jul 2014 03:05:23 +0800
From:	Yuyang Du <>
To:	Morten Rasmussen <>
Cc:	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 PATCH 00/23] sched: Energy cost model for energy-aware

Hi Morten,

Thanks, got it. Then another question,

On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 12:06:13PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> The patch set essentially puts tasks where it is most energy-efficient
> guided by the platform energy model. That should benefit any platform,
> SMP and big.LITTLE. That is at least the goal.

I understand energy_diff_* functions are based on the energy model (though I
have not dived into the detail of how you change load balancing based on

Speaking of the engergy model, I am not sure why elaborate "imprecise" energy
numbers do a better job than only a general statement: higher freq, more cap,
and more power.

Even for big.LITTLE systems, big and little CPUs also follow that statement
respectively. Then it is just a matter of where to place tasks between them.
Under such, the energy model might be useful, but still probably cpu_power_orig
(from Vincent) might be enough.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists