From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757345Ab3KYS4A (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:56:00 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f176.google.com ([209.85.215.176]:65377 "EHLO mail-ea0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756921Ab3KYSz4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:55:56 -0500 Message-ID: <52939D3F.3050409@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:55:59 +0100 From: Daniel Lezcano User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra , Catalin Marinas CC: Vincent Guittot , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar , Paul Turner , Morten Rasmussen , Chris Metcalf , Tony Luck , "alex.shi@intel.com" , Preeti U Murthy , linaro-kernel , "len.brown@intel.com" , l.majewski@samsung.com, Jonathan Corbet , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Paul McKenney , Arjan van de Ven , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 00/14] sched: packing tasks References: <1382097147-30088-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20131111163630.GD26898@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20131111163630.GD26898@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/11/2013 05:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:33:45AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > tl;dr :-) Still trying to wrap my head around how to do that weird > topology Vincent raised.. > >> Question for Peter/Ingo: do you want the scheduler to decide on which >> C-state a CPU should be in or we still leave this to a cpuidle >> layer/driver? > > I think the can leave most of that in a driver; right along with how to > prod the hardware to actually get into that state. > > I think the most important parts are what is now 'generic' code; stuff > that guestimates the idle-time and so forth. > > I think the scheduler simply wants to say: we expect to go idle for X > ns, we want a guaranteed wakeup latency of Y ns -- go do your thing. Hi Peter, IIUC, for full integration in the scheduler, we should eradicate the idle task and the related code tied with it, no ? > I think you also raised the point in that we do want some feedback as to > the cost of waking up particular cores to better make decisions on which > to wake. That is indeed so. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog