From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yuyang Du Subject: Re: [RFCv2 PATCH 00/23] sched: Energy cost model for energy-aware scheduling Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 08:23:43 +0800 Message-ID: <20140708002343.GC25653@intel.com> References: <1404404770-323-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com> <20140703231950.GA4881@intel.com> <20140704110612.GA6120@e103034-lin> <20140706190523.GA12113@intel.com> <20140707141627.GB4485@e103687> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140707141627.GB4485@e103687> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Morten Rasmussen Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "peterz@infradead.org" , "mingo@kernel.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "vincent.guittot@linaro.org" , "daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" , "preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , Dietmar Eggemann , "pjt@google.com" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi Morten, On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:16:27PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'a general statement'? The general statement is: higher freq, more cap, and more power. More specific numbers are not needed, as they are just instances of this general statement. > cpu_power doesn't tell you anything about energy-efficiency. There is no > link with frequency scaling. In general, more cpu_power, more freq, less energy-efficiency, as you said sometime ago. > No representation of power domains. Represented by CPU topology? Thanks, Yuyang