Message-ID: <509A5C1D.601@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:03:25 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Luming Yu <luming.yu@gmail.com>
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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched: add sched_policy and it's sysfs interface
References: <1352207399-29497-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1352207399-29497-2-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <CAJRGBZzPcCGAz1nc_rGpVd5rq2sZiFZ0Gu_PVnsEzhkaUd7zFA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJRGBZzPcCGAz1nc_rGpVd5rq2sZiFZ0Gu_PVnsEzhkaUd7zFA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1700
Lines: 39

On 11/06/2012 11:20 PM, Luming Yu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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

It is not conflict with this patchset. :)
> 
> 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
> 


-- 
Thanks
    Alex
--
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/