lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 3/3] idle: store the idle state index in the struct rq
On 2/3/2014 4:54 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:

>
> I'm therefore not convinced that idle state index is the right thing to
> give the scheduler. Using a cost metric would be better in my
> opinion.


I totally agree with this, and we may need two separate cost metrics

1) A latency driven one
2) A performance impact on

first one is pretty much the exit latency related time, sort of a "expected time to first instruction"
(currently menuidle has the 99.999% worst case number, which is not useful for this, but is a first
approximation). This is obviously the dominating number for expected-short running tasks

second on is more of a "is there any cache/TLB left or is it flushed" kind of metric. It's more tricky
to compute, since what is the cost of an empty cache (or even a cache migration) after all....
.... but I suspect it's in part what the scheduler will care about more for expected-long running tasks.






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-03 16:41    [W:0.108 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site