Re: sched: deep power-saving states

[Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1217 bytes --]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:42:52 -0400
> Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> What I was thinking is that a simple mechanism to quantify the
>> power-state penalty would be to add those states as priority levels in
>> the cpupri namespace.  E.g. We could substitute IDLE-RUNNING for IDLE,
>> and add IDLE-PS1, IDLE-PS2, .. IDLE-PSn, OTHER, RT1, .. RT99.  This
>> means the scheduler would favor waking an IDLE-RUNNING core over an
>> IDLE-PS1-PSn, etc.  The question in my mind is: can the power-states
>> be determined in a static fashion such that we know what value to
>> quantify the idle state before we enter it?  Or is it more dynamic
>> (e.g. the longer it is in an MWAIT, the deeper the sleep gets).
>>     
>
> it's a little dynamic, but just assuming the worst will be a very good
> approximation of reality. And we know what we're getting into in that
> sense.
>   

Ok, but if we just assume the worst case always, how do I differentiate
between, say, IDLE-RUNNING and IDLE-PSn?  If I assign them all to
IDLE-PSn apriori its no better than the basic single IDLE state we
support today.  Or am I misunderstanding you?

-Greg



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 257 bytes --]