Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:03:25 +0800 | From | Alex Shi <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched: add sched_policy and it's sysfs interface |
| |
On 11/06/2012 11:20 PM, Luming Yu wrote: > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> wrote: >> This patch add the power aware scheduler knob into sysfs: > > The problem is user doesn't know how to use this knob. > > Based on what data, people could select one policy which could be surely > better than another? > > "Packing small tasks" approach could be better and more intelligent. > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1348522
It is not conflict with this patchset. :) > > Just some random thoughts, as I didn't have chance to look into the > details of that patch set yet. But to me, we need to exploit the fact > that we could automatically bind a group of tasks on minimal set of > CPUs that can provide sufficient CPU cycles that are comparable to > a"cpu- run-average" that the task group can get in pure CFS situation > in a given period, until we see more CPU is needed.Then we probably > can maintain required CPU power available to the corresponding > workload, while leaving all other CPUs into power saving mode. The > problem is historical data suggested pattern could become invalid in > future, then we need more CPUs in future..I think this is the point we > need to know before spread or not-spread decision ...if spread would > not help CPU-run-average ,we don't need waste CPU power..but I don't > know how hard it could be. But I'm pretty sure sysfs knob is harder. > :-) /l >
-- Thanks Alex
| |