Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753409Ab3GXPQm (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:16:42 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:30435 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753049Ab3GXPQj (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:16:39 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,736,1367996400"; d="scan'208";a="336111894" Message-ID: <51EFEFD4.4020808@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:16:36 -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: Morten Rasmussen CC: Catalin Marinas , Peter Zijlstra , "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" , "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> <20130713102350.GA8067@MacBook-Pro.local> <20130715203922.GD23818@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20130716124248.GB10036@arm.com> <51E5655C.7050304@linux.intel.com> <20130717141426.GG27948@arm.com> <20130724135011.GE12572@e103034-lin> In-Reply-To: <20130724135011.GE12572@e103034-lin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; 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: 1089 Lines: 24 > Given that the power topology is taken into account, a sort > left/right-like mechanism would only help performance insensitive tasks > on big.LITTLE. Performance sensitive tasks that each can use more than > a little cpu should move in the opposite direction. Well, directly to a > big cpu, even if some little cpus are idle. > > It can be discussed whether smaller performance sensitive tasks that > would fit on a little cpu should be put on a little or big cpu. That > would depend on the nature of the task and if other tasks depend on it. yeah that makes it fun just a question for my education; is there overlap between big and little? meaning, is the "highest speed of little" as fast, or faster than "lowest speed of big" or are those strictly disjoint? (if there's overlap that gives some room for the scheduler to experiment) -- 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/