public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: benh@kernel.crashing.org (Benjamin Herrenschmidt)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 6/6] sched: powerpc: Add SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN for SMT level
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 14:12:06 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1395544326.3460.98.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <532E3DB4.9060908@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 07:19 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> We were discussing the impact of this consolidation and we are not too
> sure if it will yield us good power efficiency. So we would want to
> experiment with the power aware scheduler to find the "sweet spot" for
> the number of threads to consolidate to and more importantly if there
> is
> one such number at all. Else we would not want to go this way at all.
> Hence it looks best if this patch is dropped until we validate it. We
> don't want the code getting in and then out if we find out later there
> are no benefits to it.
> 
> I am sorry that I suggested this patch a bit pre-mature in the
> experimentation and validation stage. When you release the load
> balancing patchset for power aware scheduler I shall validate this
> patch. But until then its best if it does not get merged.

It's quite possible that we never find a correct "sweet spot" for all
workloads.

Ideally, the "target" number of used threads per core should be a
tunable so that the user / distro can "tune" based on a given workload
whether to pack cores and how much to pack them, vs. spreading the
workload. Akin to scheduling for performance vs. power in a way (though
lower perf usually means higher power due to longer running jobs of
course).

In any case, we need to experiment.

Cheers,
Ben.
 

  reply	other threads:[~2014-03-23  3:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-19 16:22 [PATCH v3 0/6] rework sched_domain topology description Vincent Guittot
2014-03-19 16:22 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] sched: rework of sched_domain topology definition Vincent Guittot
2014-03-20 12:41   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-20 17:02     ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-20 17:18       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-21 10:04         ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-24 14:02           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-19 16:22 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] sched: s390: create a dedicated topology table Vincent Guittot
2014-03-19 16:22 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] sched: powerpc: " Vincent Guittot
2014-03-19 16:22 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] sched: add a new SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN for sched_domain Vincent Guittot
2014-03-19 16:22 ` [PATCH 5/6] sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table Vincent Guittot
2014-03-19 16:22 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] sched: powerpc: Add SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN for SMT level Vincent Guittot
2014-03-23  1:49   ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-03-23  3:12     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2014-03-24  8:21     ` Vincent Guittot

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=1395544326.3460.98.camel@pasglop \
    --to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox