Re: [patch] sched: group CPU power setup cleanup

[Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>]

Paul Jackson wrote:
>>> Hope not.  To me, "computing power" means megaflops/sec, or Dhrystones
>>> (don't ask) or whatever.  If that's what "cpu_power" is referring to then
>>> the name is hopelessly ambiguous with peak joules/sec and a big renaming is
>>> due.
>> It refers to group's processing power. Perhaps "horsepower" is better term.
> 
> Well ... I don't think "horsepower" is a step in the right direction.
> 
> Andrew's point was over the word "power", not "cpu".  The term
> "cpu_power" suggested to him we were concerned with the power supply
> watts consumed by a group of CPUs.  Indeed, both those concerned with
> laptop battery lifetimes, and the air conditioning tonnage needed
> for big honkin NUMA iron might have reason to be concerned with the
> power consumed by CPUs.
> 
> Changing the word "cpu" to "horse", but keeping the word "power",
> does nothing to address Andrew's point.  Rather it just adds more
> confusion.  We are obviously dealing with CPUs here, not horses.
> 
> My understanding is that the "cpu_power" of the cpus in a sched group
> is rougly proportional to the BogoMIPS of the CPUs in that group.
> 

How about energy instead of power?  I.e. the CPU's capacity to do work.

Peter
-- 
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
  -- Ambrose Bierce