From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arjan@linux.intel.com (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:30:58 -0700 Subject: [RFC PATCH v3 5/6] sched: pack the idle load balance In-Reply-To: <5175F09E.1000304@intel.com> References: <1363955155-18382-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1363955155-18382-6-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1364302359.5053.21.camel@laptop> <1364308932.5053.46.camel@laptop> <5174CE96.3060805@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5175F09E.1000304@intel.com> Message-ID: <5176A932.5050506@linux.intel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 4/22/2013 7:23 PM, Alex Shi wrote: > Thanks you, Preeti and Vincent to talk the power aware scheduler for > details! believe this open discussion is helpful to conduct a a more > comprehensive solution. :) > >> Hi Preeti, >> >> I have had a look at Alex patches but i have some concerns with his patches >> -There no notion of power domain which is quite important when we speak >> about power saving IMHO. Packing tasks has got an interest if the idle >> CPUs can reach a useful low power state independently from busy CPUs. >> Architectures have different low power state capabilities which must be >> taken into account. In addition, you can have system which have CPUs >> with better power efficiency and this kind of system are not taken into >> account. > > I agree with you on this point. and like what's you done to add new flag > in sched domain. For x86 we should not be setting such flag then; we don't have a way for some cpu packages to go to an extra deep power state if they're completely idle. (this afaik is true for both Intel and AMD)