Re: [RFCv5 PATCH 32/46] sched: Energy-aware wake-up task placement

From	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFCv5 PATCH 32/46] sched: Energy-aware wake-up task placement
Date	2015-09-29 02:20 +0200
Message-ID	<qdQOe-6TL-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <pJFN1-Ef-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <q4jRv-33p-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <qa1fc-8td-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qaRGN-7Ww-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qaUY2-4jZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 09/20/2015 03:03 PM, Leo Yan wrote:
> In this case of CPU is running at fmax, it's true that
> task_fits_capacity() will return true. But here i think
> cpu_overutilized() also will return true, so that means scheduler will
> go back to use CFS's old way for loading balance. Finally tasks also
> will be spread into two clusters.

Agreed that once the first cluster is overutilized, the load will
definitely spread to both clusters. My concern though is that for this
to occur, the first cluster will likely be pushed to a high OPP. For
power (and even perhaps performance) spreading the load earlier may be
better. Or not, my observation is really just that we're encoding policy
here which ideally would be the result of calculations in the energy model.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [RFCv5 PATCH 32/46] sched: Energy-aware wake-up task placement Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> - 2015-09-29 02:20 +0200

csiph-web