From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Morten Rasmussen Subject: [0/11] Energy-aware scheduling use-cases and scheduler issues Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:45:40 +0000 Message-ID: <1387557951-21750-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:59153 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755419Ab3LTQpf (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:45:35 -0500 Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, markgross@thegnar.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi, One of the requests from the scheduler maintainers at the Energy-aware Scheduling workshop at Kernel Summit this year was to provide plain text descriptions of use-cases (workloads) and system topologies. To get that moving I have written some short texts about some use-cases. In addition I described a list of issues that today prevent mainly the scheduler from achieving a good energy/performance balance in common use-cases. The follow-up emails are structured as follows: 1-6:=09Current issues related to energy/performance balance. 7-10:=09Use-cases (overall behaviour and energy/performance goals) 11:=09DVFS example (for reference) I'm hoping that this provides some of the background for why I'm interested in improving energy-awareness in the scheduler. I'm aware that the use-cases and issues/wishlist don't cover everyone's area of interest. Input is needed to fix that. Comments and input are appreciated. Morten