lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sched: deep power-saving states
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:42:52 -0400
> Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> What I was thinking is that a simple mechanism to quantify the
>> power-state penalty would be to add those states as priority levels in
>> the cpupri namespace. E.g. We could substitute IDLE-RUNNING for IDLE,
>> and add IDLE-PS1, IDLE-PS2, .. IDLE-PSn, OTHER, RT1, .. RT99. This
>> means the scheduler would favor waking an IDLE-RUNNING core over an
>> IDLE-PS1-PSn, etc. The question in my mind is: can the power-states
>> be determined in a static fashion such that we know what value to
>> quantify the idle state before we enter it? Or is it more dynamic
>> (e.g. the longer it is in an MWAIT, the deeper the sleep gets).
>>
>
> it's a little dynamic, but just assuming the worst will be a very good
> approximation of reality. And we know what we're getting into in that
> sense.
>

Ok, but if we just assume the worst case always, how do I differentiate
between, say, IDLE-RUNNING and IDLE-PSn? If I assign them all to
IDLE-PSn apriori its no better than the basic single IDLE state we
support today. Or am I misunderstanding you?

-Greg


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-22 16:03    [W:0.033 / U:7.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site