From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752582Ab3AWAfo (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:35:44 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:41960 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752008Ab3AWAfj (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:35:39 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,518,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="277208217" Message-ID: <50FF3090.1090608@intel.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:36:32 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Galbraith CC: Paul Turner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Borislav Petkov , namhyung@kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , Greg Kroah-Hartman , preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/22] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load and cpu_avg_load_per_task References: <1357375071-11793-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1357375071-11793-10-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <50E7EAB1.6020302@intel.com> <50E92DC3.4050906@intel.com> <50EFB1DB.7090804@intel.com> <50FD54EA.4060804@intel.com> <50FE0575.6090005@intel.com> <1358837740.5782.209.camel@marge.simpson.net> <50FE44B5.6020004@intel.com> <1358848338.5782.331.camel@marge.simpson.net> In-Reply-To: <1358848338.5782.331.camel@marge.simpson.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/22/2013 05:52 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> Thanks for your suggestions and example, Mike! >> I just can't understand the your last words here, Sorry. what the >> detailed concern of you on 'both performance profiles with either >> metric'? Could you like to give your preferred solutions? > > Hm.. I'll try rephrasing. Any power saving gain will of necessity be > paid for in latency currency. I don't have a solution other than make a > button, let the user decide whether history influences fast path task > placement or not. Any other decision maker will get it wrong. Um, if no other objection, I'd like to move the runnable load only used for power friendly policy -- for this patchset, they are 'powersaving' and 'balance', Can I? > > -Mike > -- Thanks Alex