From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/16] arm: topology: Define TC2 sched energy and provide it to scheduler Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 23:56:55 +0200 Message-ID: <2484761.vkWavnsDx3@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1400869003-27769-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com> <20140604160230.GS29593@e103034-lin> <20140604172712.GJ13930@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140604172712.GJ13930@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Morten Rasmussen , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "mingo@kernel.org" , "vincent.guittot@linaro.org" , "daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" , "preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , Dietmar Eggemann List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 07:27:12 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 05:02:30PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:50:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 07:16:33PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > > +static struct capacity_state cap_states_cluster_a7[] = { > > > > + /* Cluster only power */ > > > > + { .cap = 358, .power = 2967, }, /* 350 MHz */ > > > > + { .cap = 410, .power = 2792, }, /* 400 MHz */ > > > > + { .cap = 512, .power = 2810, }, /* 500 MHz */ > > > > + { .cap = 614, .power = 2815, }, /* 600 MHz */ > > > > + { .cap = 717, .power = 2919, }, /* 700 MHz */ > > > > + { .cap = 819, .power = 2847, }, /* 800 MHz */ > > > > + { .cap = 922, .power = 3917, }, /* 900 MHz */ > > > > + { .cap = 1024, .power = 4905, }, /* 1000 MHz */ > > > > + }; > > > > > > So one thing I remember was that we spoke about restricting this to > > > frequency levels where the voltage changed. > > > > > > Because voltage jumps were the biggest factor to energy usage. > > > > > > Any word on that? > > > > Since we don't drive P-state changes from the scheduler, I think we > > could leave out P-states from the table without too much trouble. Good > > point. > > Well, we eventually want to go there I think. Although we still needed > to come up with something for Intel, because I'm not at all sure how all > that works. Do you mean power numbers or how P-states work on Intel in general? Rafael