lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 2/2] sched/fair: prefer a CPU in the "lowest" idle state
On 01/31/2013 03:40 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> But AFAIK the number of states in cpuidle is usually less than 10 so maybe
>>> we can change the weight then, but there's no promise...
>>
>> And I just got another case we should take care:
>>
>> group 0 cpu 0 cpu 1
>> power index 8 power index 8
>>
>>
>> group 1 cpu 2 cpu 3
>> power index 0 load 15
>>
>> so load of group 0 is 16 and group 1 is 15, but group 0 is better...
>
> Maybe it's not. The cpus in group 0 are in a lower power state so that
> there will be a benefit to select cpu 2 from the power' PoV IMHO. Also
> such a low power state has a longer exit latency so that we should
> choose cpu2 to get a better performance and it's the basic idea of this
> patchset I believe.

Well, this case is just to notify that, we may face the comparison
between load and index, not between index and index, I just doubt there
won't be a rule which could take care both, besides, comparison between
load and index is strange...

Regards,
Michael Wang

>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-31 10:01    [W:0.059 / U:0.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site