Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 May 2009 20:28:29 +0530 | From | Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Saving power by cpu evacuation sched_max_capacity_pct=n |
| |
* Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> [2009-05-13 17:10:54]:
> > > 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.
Hi Andi,
There is a difference in the framework as Peter has mentioned, we are trying to create idle times by forcefully reducing work. From an end-user point of view, this can be seen as a logical extension of sched_mc_power_savings... v1 of the RFC extends the framework.
However Ingo suggested that the knob is not intuitive and hence I have tried to switch to a percentage knob sched_max_capacity_pct.
I am interested in an easy, simple and intuitive framework to evacuate cores which may imply forcefully reducing (throttling) work.
> > 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.
I think 'scheduler throttling' is good so that we avoid the term 'CPU throttling' or core throttling. I had named this cpu evacuation or core evacuation just to avoid confusion with hardware throttling.
--Vaidy
| |