Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755197AbZICMLx (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:11:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755159AbZICMLw (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:11:52 -0400 Received: from tx2ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com ([65.55.88.11]:54654 "EHLO TX2EHSOBE002.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754996AbZICMLv convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:11:51 -0400 X-SpamScore: -17 X-BigFish: VPS-17(zz146fK1432R98dNa594izz1202hzzz32i6bh203h61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 X-FB-SS: 5, X-WSS-ID: 0KPE9VI-02-JHI-02 X-M-MSG: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:10:45 +0200 From: Andreas Herrmann To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gautham R Shenoy , Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] load-balancing and cpu_power -v2 Message-ID: <20090903121045.GK7216@alberich.amd.com> References: <20090901083431.748830771@chello.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090901083431.748830771@chello.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Sep 2009 12:10:45.0839 (UTC) FILETIME=[910415F0:01CA2C8F] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1917 Lines: 52 On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:34:31AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > A more complete version, one that compiles and mostly works on the > simple tests to which it was subjected. > > It still lacks integration with APERF/MPERF because that stuff was > hidding in some acpi driver instead of placed in arch code for general > consumption.. will fix. > > Also, SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER seems redundant in the face of sd->level == > SD_LV_SIBLING, should we remove the SD_flag or depricate the level? > > Anyway, have at it, poke holes and report issues. Tested it (to a certain extend). Found no performance degradation (on 1P, 2P, 4P systems). (One could think performance might slightly degrade due to more frequent __cpu_power updates). Issue that I see is that switching between scheduling policies has no effect on already running tasks: - tasks that are already distributed among sockets are _not_ concentrated on one socket when switching from performance to power_savings scheduling - tasks utilizing a socket are _not_ distributed among sockets when switching from power_savings to performance policy This applies to modification of sched_mc_power_savings. And I think one of above scenarios is already broken in tip/master w/o your patches. Otherwise especially wrt to integration of APERF/MPERF this seems to be a good approach. Regards, Andreas -- Operating | Advanced Micro Devices GmbH System | Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34, 85609 Dornach b. M?nchen, Germany Research | Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Andrew Bowd, Thomas M. McCoy, Giuliano Meroni Center | Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis M?nchen (OSRC) | Registergericht M?nchen, HRB Nr. 43632 -- 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/