Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754036AbYG2Qb2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:31:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750950AbYG2QbT (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:31:19 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:60951 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750743AbYG2QbT (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:31:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:31:13 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Andi Kleen , Mike Galbraith , Frederik Deweerdt , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000002 Message-ID: <20080729163113.GP30344@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20080725095317.GA12636@skywalker> <20080728222643.GA6339@slug> <1217305335.5553.3.camel@marge.simson.net> <20080729120911.GI30344@one.firstfloor.org> <20080729065635.27630e33@infradead.org> <20080729145348.GN30344@one.firstfloor.org> <20080729083029.094a32cb@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080729083029.094a32cb@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1468 Lines: 34 > > A power saving feature that has a significant trade off between power > > and performance. > > do you have numbers to explain "significant tradeoff" ? I don't have numbers, but from the theory it seems pretty clear. When you e.g. have two processes with 6MB cache foot print and you have two 2C CPUs with 6MB cache they will fit in cache, but with power aware scheduler they won't because both processes will run on the single 6MB package. With NUMA the effect is even worse because also the memory controllers are not used evenly. And there's the FSB bandwidth, but that's a secondary issue. > > > > This means performance will go down. Perhaps it would be ok on > > battery, > > the illusion that power only matters on battery got buried a few years > ago ;) My understanding was always that unless you're on battery power saving features that are enabled by default are not supposed to impact performance significantly. When the user says impacting performance is ok then doing that is fine of course, but not by default. And I don't think that's an illusion. In fact if power saving means losing a lot of performance people would get discouraged from using it, and surely you don't want that. -Andi -- 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/