Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] sched: Power scheduler design proposal

[Morten Rasmussen]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 05:48:42PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > I would expect performance to be disjoint for most tasks. If there was
> > an overlap, the big would probably be less power efficient (as in
> > energy/instruction) than the little so you would prefer to run on the
> > little anyway.
> >
> > In what way would you use the overlap?
> 
> if the scheduler thinks a task would be better off on the other side
> than where it is now, it could first move it into the "overlap area" on the
> same side by means of experiment, and if the task behaves as expected there,
> THEN move it over.

You could do that, but due to the different uarchs you wouldn't really
know how a cpu bound task would behave on the other side. It would
probably work for memory bound tasks.

Also, for interactive applications (smartphones and such) intermediate
steps will increase latency when going little to big. Going the other
way it would be fine.

--
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/