Re: [discussion]sched: a rough proposal to enable power saving inscheduler

[Arjan van de Ven]

On 8/22/2012 6:21 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 06:02:48AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On 8/21/2012 10:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> For my dinky dual core laptop, I suspect you're right, but for a more
>>> powerful laptop, I'd expect spread/don't to be noticeable.
>>
>> yeah if you don't spread, you will waste some power.
>> but.. current linux behavior is to spread.
>> so we can only make it worse.
> 
> Right. For a single socket system the only thing you can do is use two 
> threads in preference to using two cores. That'll keep an extra core in 
> a deep C state for longer, at the cost of keeping the package out of a 
> deep C state for longer. There might be a win if the two processes 
> benefit from improved L1 cache locality, or if you're talking about 

basically "if HT sharing would be good for performance" ;-)

(btw this is good news, it means this is not an actual power/performance tradeoff, but a "get it right" tradeoff)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/