[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150324130058.GN23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:00:58 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, yuyang.du@...el.com,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mturquette@...aro.org, nico@...aro.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, juri.lelli@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFCv3 PATCH 33/48] sched: Energy-aware wake-up task placement
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 06:31:10PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> @@ -5138,6 +5224,10 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int sd_flag, int wake_f
> prev_cpu = cpu;
>
> if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) {
> + if (energy_aware()) {
> + new_cpu = energy_aware_wake_cpu(p);
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu);
> goto unlock;
> }
So that is fundamentally wrong I think. We only care about power aware
scheduling when U < 1, after that we should do the normal thing. This
setup does not allow for that.
--
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