Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932286Ab3GOWrB (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:47:01 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:39194 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754752Ab3GOWrA (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:47:00 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,672,1367996400"; d="scan'208";a="331828661" Message-ID: <51E47BE2.3000801@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:46:58 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Morten Rasmussen , mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, alex.shi@intel.com, efault@gmx.de, pjt@google.com, len.brown@intel.com, corbet@lwn.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] sched: Power scheduler design proposal References: <1373385338-12983-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com> <20130713064909.GW25631@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> <51E166C8.3000902@linux.intel.com> <20130715195914.GC23818@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> <51E45E8B.705@linux.intel.com> <20130715210650.GF23818@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20130715210650.GF23818@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1056 Lines: 25 >> so depending of the mix of compute and memory instructions, different tradeoffs >> might be needed. >> >> (for an example of this, AMD exposes a CPU counter for this as of recently and added >> patches to "ondemand" to use it) > > OK, but isn't that part of why the micro controller might not make you go > faster even if you do program a higher P state? > > But yes, I understand this issue in the 'traditional' cpufreq sense. There's no > point in ramping the speed if all you do is stall more. > > But I was under the impression the 'hardware' was doing this. If not then we > need the whole go-faster and go-slower thing and places to call them and means > to determine to call them etc. so the answer is "somewhat" and "on some cpus" not all generations of Intel cpus are the same in this regard ;-( -- 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/