From: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl (Peter Zijlstra)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:13:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1318324399.14400.71.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtB_eXgggeEYmNsXkvL8NsoEoz_NJFgA4E5WtAm74F515Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 10:51 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> I have several goals. The 1st one is that I need to put more load on
> some cpus when I have packages with different cpu frequency.
That should be rather easy.
> I also study if I can follow the real cpu frequency but it seems to be
> not so easy.
Why not?
> I have noticed that the cpu_power is updated periodical
> except when we have a lot of newly_idle events.
We can certainly fix that.
> Then, I have some use cases which have several running tasks but a low
> cpu load. In this case, the small tasks are spread on several cpu by
> the load_balance whereas they could be easily handled by one cpu
> without significant performance modification.
That shouldn't be done using cpu_power, we have sched_smt_power_savings
and sched_mc_power_savings for stuff like that.
Although I would really like to kill all those different
sched_*_power_savings knobs and reduce it to one.
> If the cpu_power is
> higher than 1024, the cpu is no more seen out of capacity by the
> load_balance as soon as a short process is running and teh main result
> is that the small tasks will stay on the same cpu. This configuration
> is mainly usefull for ARM dual core system when we want to power gate
> one cpu. I use cyclictest to simulate such use case.
Yeah, but that's wrong.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:13:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1318324399.14400.71.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtB_eXgggeEYmNsXkvL8NsoEoz_NJFgA4E5WtAm74F515Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 10:51 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> I have several goals. The 1st one is that I need to put more load on
> some cpus when I have packages with different cpu frequency.
That should be rather easy.
> I also study if I can follow the real cpu frequency but it seems to be
> not so easy.
Why not?
> I have noticed that the cpu_power is updated periodical
> except when we have a lot of newly_idle events.
We can certainly fix that.
> Then, I have some use cases which have several running tasks but a low
> cpu load. In this case, the small tasks are spread on several cpu by
> the load_balance whereas they could be easily handled by one cpu
> without significant performance modification.
That shouldn't be done using cpu_power, we have sched_smt_power_savings
and sched_mc_power_savings for stuff like that.
Although I would really like to kill all those different
sched_*_power_savings knobs and reduce it to one.
> If the cpu_power is
> higher than 1024, the cpu is no more seen out of capacity by the
> load_balance as soon as a short process is running and teh main result
> is that the small tasks will stay on the same cpu. This configuration
> is mainly usefull for ARM dual core system when we want to power gate
> one cpu. I use cyclictest to simulate such use case.
Yeah, but that's wrong.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-11 9:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-06 11:36 sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power Vincent Guittot
2011-10-06 11:36 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-10-11 7:16 ` Amit Kucheria
2011-10-11 7:16 ` Amit Kucheria
2011-10-11 7:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-11 7:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-11 8:51 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-10-11 8:51 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-10-11 9:13 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-10-11 9:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-11 9:38 ` Amit Kucheria
2011-10-11 9:38 ` Amit Kucheria
2011-10-11 10:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-11 10:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-11 9:40 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-10-11 9:40 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-10-11 10:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-11 10:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-11 16:03 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-10-11 16:03 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-10-11 16:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-11 16:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1318324399.14400.71.camel@laptop \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.