Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756096AbYKKNoH (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:44:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755639AbYKKNnz (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:43:55 -0500 Received: from viefep18-int.chello.at ([213.46.255.22]:13010 "EHLO viefep18-int.chello.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755855AbYKKNny (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:43:54 -0500 X-SourceIP: 213.46.9.244 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/5] sched: nominate preferred wakeup cpu From: Peter Zijlstra To: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan Cc: Linux Kernel , Suresh B Siddha , Venkatesh Pallipadi , Ingo Molnar , Dipankar Sarma , Balbir Singh , Vatsa , Gautham R Shenoy , Andi Kleen , David Collier-Brown , Tim Connors , Max Krasnyansky , "gregory.haskins" In-Reply-To: <20081110183326.562.37718.stgit@drishya.in.ibm.com> References: <20081110181526.562.69941.stgit@drishya.in.ibm.com> <20081110183326.562.37718.stgit@drishya.in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:43:39 +0100 Message-Id: <1226411019.7685.1767.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1085 Lines: 25 On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 00:03 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote: > When the system utilisation is low and more cpus are idle, > then the process waking up from sleep should prefer to > wakeup an idle cpu from semi-idle cpu package (multi core > package) rather than a completely idle cpu package which > would waste power. > > Use the sched_mc balance logic in find_busiest_group() to > nominate a preferred wakeup cpu. > > This info can be sored in appropriate sched_domain, but > updating this info in all copies of sched_domain is not > practical. For now lets try with a per-cpu variable > pointing to a common storage in partition sched domain > attribute. Global variable may not work in partitioned > sched domain case. Would it make sense to place the preferred_wakeup_cpu stuff in the root_domain structure we already have? -- 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/