[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151105112732.7f600ba8@icelake>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:27:32 -0800
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:09:22 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Before:
> > CPU0 ______||| || |___________| || || |_____
> > CPU1 _________||| || |_______| || |_______
> >
> > After:
> >
> > CPU0 ______||| || |___________| || || |_____
> > CPU1 ______||| || |___________| || |_______
> >
> > The goal is to have overlapping idle time if the load is already
> > balanced. The energy saving can be significant.
>
> I can see such a scheme having a fairly big impact on latency, esp.
> with forced idleness such as this. That's not going to be popular for
> many workloads.
agreed, it would be for limited workload. the key is to identify such
workloads at runtime. I am thinking to use the load average of
the busiest CPU as reference for consolidation, will not go beyond
that.
For the patch I have today and if you play a game like this one
http://www.agame.com/game/cut-the-rope
--
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