Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:51:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:51:13 -0500 Received: from h24-77-26-115.gv.shawcable.net ([24.77.26.115]:1153 "EHLO phalynx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:50:59 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Ryan Cumming To: timothy.covell@ashavan.org Subject: Re: Scheduler, Can we save some juice ... Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 22:50:54 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <200112200637.fBK6b2Sr014173@svr3.applink.net> In-Reply-To: <200112200637.fBK6b2Sr014173@svr3.applink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On December 19, 2001 22:33, Timothy Covell wrote: > OK, here's another 0.1% for you. Considering how Linux SMP > doesn't have high CPU affinity, would it be possible to make a > patch such that the additional CPUs remain in deep sleep/HALT > mode until the first CPU hits a high-water mark of say 90% > utilization? I've started doing this by hand with the (x)pulse > application. My goal is to save electricity and cut down on > excess heat when I'm just browsing the web and not compiling > or seti@home'ing. I seriously doubt there would be a noticable power consumption or heat difference between two CPU's running HLT half the time, and one CPU running HLT all the time. And I'm downright certain it isn't worth the code complexity even if it was, there is very little (read: no) intersection between the SMP and low-power user base. -Ryan - 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/