Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753215AbYJVOg2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:36:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753066AbYJVOgO (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:36:14 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:56010 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752553AbYJVOgN (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:36:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:36:16 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Gregory Haskins Cc: Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: sched: deep power-saving states Message-ID: <20081022073616.5eb150fa@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <48FF3829.8040704@novell.com> References: <48FF2DDC.5010600@gmail.com> <20081022064738.05818670@infradead.org> <48FF3321.4060809@novell.com> <20081022070701.567f1c9a@infradead.org> <48FF3829.8040704@novell.com> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.12; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1664 Lines: 39 On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:26:49 -0400 Gregory Haskins wrote: steps, so it'll be > > faster) > > [Adding Peter Zijlstra to the thread] > > Ah, yes of course! That makes sense. So I have to admit I am fairly > ignorant of the ACPI C-state stuff, so I just read up on it. In the > context of what you said, it makes perfect sense to me now. > > IIUC, the OS selects which C-state it will enter at idle points based > on some internal criteria (TBD). All we have to do is remap the > cpupri "IDLE" state to something like IDLE-C1, IDLE-C2, ..., IDLE-Cn > and have the cpupri map get updated coincident with the pm_idle() > call. Then the scheduler will naturally favor cores that are in > lighter sleep over cores in deep sleep. > > I am not sure if this is exactly what you were getting at during the > conf, since it doesnt really consider deep-sleep latency times > directly. But I think this is a step in the right direction. it for sure is a step in the right direction. the actual exit costs are an optional parameter in this sense, the steps between C states are non-linear (more like exponential) so knowing the actual numbers could be used. but even if you don't use it, it still makes sense and is a very good first order behavior. -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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/