Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:55:59 +0100 | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 00/14] sched: packing tasks |
| |
On 11/11/2013 05:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:33:45AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > tl;dr :-) Still trying to wrap my head around how to do that weird > topology Vincent raised.. > >> Question for Peter/Ingo: do you want the scheduler to decide on which >> C-state a CPU should be in or we still leave this to a cpuidle >> layer/driver? > > I think the can leave most of that in a driver; right along with how to > prod the hardware to actually get into that state. > > I think the most important parts are what is now 'generic' code; stuff > that guestimates the idle-time and so forth. > > I think the scheduler simply wants to say: we expect to go idle for X > ns, we want a guaranteed wakeup latency of Y ns -- go do your thing.
Hi Peter,
IIUC, for full integration in the scheduler, we should eradicate the idle task and the related code tied with it, no ?
> I think you also raised the point in that we do want some feedback as to > the cost of waking up particular cores to better make decisions on which > to wake. That is indeed so. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
-- 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/
| |