lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH v5 00/14] sched: packing tasks
From
Date
On 12 Nov 2013, at 16:48, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2013 10:18 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> The ordering is based on the actual C-state, so a simple way is to wake
>> up the CPU in the shallowest C-state. With asymmetric configurations
>> (big.LITTLE) we have different costs for the same C-state, so this would
>> come in handy.
>
> btw I was considering something else; in practice CPUs will be in the deepest state..
> ... at which point I was going to go with some other metrics of what is best from a platform level

I agree, other metrics are needed. The problem is that we currently
only have (relatively, guessed from the target residency) the cost of
transition from a C-state to a P-state (for the latter, not sure which).
But we don’t know what the power (saving) on that C-state is nor the one
at a P-state (and vendors reluctant to provide such information). So the
best the scheduler can do is optimise the wake-up cost and blindly assume
that deeper C-state on a CPU is more efficient than lower P-states on two
other CPUs (or the other way around).

If we find a good use for such metrics in the scheduler, I think the
vendors would be more open to providing at least some relative (rather
than absolute) numbers.

Catalin--
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: 2013-11-13 00:21    [W:0.086 / U:1.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site