Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752392Ab2KFPU2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:20:28 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:46819 "EHLO mail-ea0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752232Ab2KFPUY (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:20:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1352207399-29497-2-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> References: <1352207399-29497-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1352207399-29497-2-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:20:23 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched: add sched_policy and it's sysfs interface From: Luming Yu To: Alex Shi Cc: rob@landley.net, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, andre.przywara@amd.com, rjw@sisk.pl, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cl@linux.com, pjt@google.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1542 Lines: 30 On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Alex Shi wrote: > This patch add the power aware scheduler knob into sysfs: The problem is user doesn't know how to use this knob. Based on what data, people could select one policy which could be surely better than another? "Packing small tasks" approach could be better and more intelligent. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1348522 Just some random thoughts, as I didn't have chance to look into the details of that patch set yet. But to me, we need to exploit the fact that we could automatically bind a group of tasks on minimal set of CPUs that can provide sufficient CPU cycles that are comparable to a"cpu- run-average" that the task group can get in pure CFS situation in a given period, until we see more CPU is needed.Then we probably can maintain required CPU power available to the corresponding workload, while leaving all other CPUs into power saving mode. The problem is historical data suggested pattern could become invalid in future, then we need more CPUs in future..I think this is the point we need to know before spread or not-spread decision ...if spread would not help CPU-run-average ,we don't need waste CPU power..but I don't know how hard it could be. But I'm pretty sure sysfs knob is harder. :-) /l -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/