[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:07:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@....com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched: Introduce scale-invariant load tracking
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 01:38:40PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> I have in mind some system where the max achievable freq of a core
> depends of how many cores are running simultaneously because of some
> HW constraint like max current. In this case, the CPU might not reach
> max frequency even with an always running task.
> Then, beside frequency scaling, their is the uarch invariance that is
> introduced by patch 4 that will generate similar behavior of the load.
This is a 'common' issue. x86 and powerpc also suffer this. It can be
the result of either thermal or power thresholds.
--
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