lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [discussion]sched: a rough proposal to enable power saving in scheduler
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:05:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 20:21 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> > It bases on the following assumption:
> > 1, If there are many task crowd in system, just let few domain cpus
> > running and let other cpus idle can not save power. Let all cpu take the
> > load, finish tasks early, and then get into idle. will save more power
> > and have better user experience.
>
> I'm not sure this is a valid assumption. I've had it explained to me by
> various people that race-to-idle isn't always the best thing. It has to
> do with the cost of switching power states and the duration of execution
> and other such things.

This is affected by Intel's implementation - if there's a single active
core in the system then you can't put *any* package into the deep
package C states, and that means you don't get into memory self refresh.
It's a pretty big difference. But this isn't inherently true, and I
suspect that any implementation is going to have to handle scenarios
where the behaviour of one package doesn't influence the behaviour of
another package.

Long term we probably also need to consider whether migrating pages
between nodes is worth it. That's going to be especially important as
systems start implementing ACPI 5's memory power management, which
effectively lets us cut power to all the RAM attached to a node.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-15 19:22    [W:2.498 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site