From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760086AbZEMPFk (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 11:05:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754942AbZEMPFc (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 11:05:32 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:53163 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754587AbZEMPFb (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 11:05:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 17:10:54 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Andi Kleen , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Linux Kernel , Suresh B Siddha , Venkatesh Pallipadi , Arjan van de Ven , Ingo Molnar , Dipankar Sarma , Balbir Singh , Vatsa , Gautham R Shenoy , Gregory Haskins , Mike Galbraith , Thomas Gleixner , Arun Bharadwaj Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Saving power by cpu evacuation sched_max_capacity_pct=n Message-ID: <20090513151054.GY19296@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20090513130541.21440.33364.stgit@drishya.in.ibm.com> <20090513143550.GU19296@one.firstfloor.org> <1242225402.26820.23.camel@twins> <20090513144659.GV19296@one.firstfloor.org> <1242226219.26820.26.camel@twins> <20090513150100.GW19296@one.firstfloor.org> <1242226927.26820.30.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1242226927.26820.30.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Yes that's fine and common, but you actually need to save power for this, > > which throttling doesn't do. > > > > My understanding this work is a extension of the existing > > sched_mc_power_savings features that tries to be optionally more > > aggressive to keep complete package idle so that package level > > power saving kicks in. > > > > I'm just requesting that they don't call that throttling. > > Ah no, this work differs in that regard in that it actually 'generates' > idle time, instead of optimizing idle time. That is what i meant with "more aggressive to keep complete packages idle" above. > > Therefore it takes actual cpu time away from real work, which is > throttling. Granted, one could call it limiting or similar, but > throttling is a correct name. That will be always ongoing confusion with the existing established term. If you really need to call it throttling use "scheduler throttling" or something like that, but a different word would be better. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.