Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754866Ab3GXQsq (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:48:46 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:38731 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753662Ab3GXQso (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:48:44 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,736,1367996400"; d="scan'208";a="336155898" Message-ID: <51F0056A.7020208@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:48:42 -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> <51EFEFD4.4020808@linux.intel.com> <20130724164607.GF12572@e103034-lin> In-Reply-To: <20130724164607.GF12572@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: 764 Lines: 19 > > 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. -- 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/