Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966298AbbKFUx3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:53:29 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:49723 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966068AbbKFTVu (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Nov 2015 14:21:50 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,253,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="679923654" Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 11:18:38 -0800 From: Jacob Pan To: Punit Agrawal Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Eduardo Valentin , Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Arjan van de Ven , Paul Turner , Len Brown , Srinivas Pandruvada , Tim Chen , Andi Kleen , Rafael Wysocki , jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] CFS idle injection Message-ID: <20151106111838.6172085d@icelake> In-Reply-To: <9hhvb9f843c.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1446509428-5616-1-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <20151104060654.GC8850@localhost.localdomain> <20151104085830.010e69f8@yairi> <20151105101218.GB3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <9hhvb9f843c.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Organization: OTC X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1196 Lines: 24 On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 16:50:15 +0000 Punit Agrawal wrote: > * idle injection once frequencies have been capped to the lowest > feasible values (as suggested in the cover letter) > actually, I was suggesting to start considering idle injection once frequency capped to the energy efficient point, which can be much higher than the lowest frequency. The idea being, deep idle power is negligible compared to running power which allows near linear power-perf scaling for balanced workload. Below energy efficient frequency, continuous lowering frequency may lose disproportion performance vs. power. i.e. worse than linear. > One question about the implementation in these patches - should the > implementation hook into pick_next_task in core instead of CFS? Higher > priority tasks might get in the way of idle injection. My take is that RT and throttling will never go well together since they are conflicting in principle. -- 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/