From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC 3/4] ARM: topology: Update cpu_power according to DT information Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:47:46 +0200 Message-ID: <1339591666.8980.26.camel@twins> References: <1339502524-10265-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1339502524-10265-4-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Amit Kucheria Cc: Vincent Guittot , Jean Pihet , linux@arm.linux.org.uk, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rob.herring@calxeda.com, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 18:14 +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote: > Various discussions around power-aware scheduling have amplified the > need for the scheduler to have some knowledge of DVFS. This would then > require the scheduler to track 'cpu_power' ( = max power) and perhaps > a new variable 'current_power' that is changed by the DVFS framework. Note that capacity is in fact a better term -- not to be confused with the capacity as currently in use within the load-balancer. Luckily there's no way to read that an not be confused.. uhmm :-) > > The first goal, though, is to make sure that the scheduler can handle > different cpu_power values due to asymmetric cores. I would think the very first goal was to do a simple packing balancer before doing silly things with asymmetric setups.. but what do I know.