Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932497Ab2HVNDh (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:03:37 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:42870 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932426Ab2HVNDe (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:03:34 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,808,1336374000"; d="scan'208";a="189841223" Message-ID: <5034D878.1000305@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 06:02:48 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Galbraith CC: Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , Matthew Garrett , Peter Zijlstra , Alex Shi , Suresh Siddha , vincent.guittot@linaro.org, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner , Paul Turner Subject: Re: [discussion]sched: a rough proposal to enable power saving in scheduler References: <1345028738.31459.82.camel@twins> <502BA7DC.7060907@linux.intel.com> <1345041548.31459.90.camel@twins> <502BB5A3.5000403@linux.intel.com> <1345043096.31459.106.camel@twins> <502BE38D.9030405@linux.intel.com> <20120820080606.GA6931@gmail.com> <20120820181651.GA737@srcf.ucam.org> <20120821094203.GB12385@gmail.com> <20120821113951.GA22436@srcf.ucam.org> <20120821151910.GA5359@gmail.com> <20120821170254.0b10ece6@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <1345614110.4374.65.camel@marge.simpson.net> In-Reply-To: <1345614110.4374.65.camel@marge.simpson.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1164 Lines: 30 On 8/21/2012 10:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 17:02 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > >> I'd like to see actual numbers and evidence on a wide range of workloads >> the spread/don't spread thing is even measurable given that you've also >> got to factor in effects like completing faster and turning everything >> off. I'd *really* like to see such evidence on a laptop,which is your >> one cited case it might work. > > For my dinky dual core laptop, I suspect you're right, but for a more > powerful laptop, I'd expect spread/don't to be noticeable. yeah if you don't spread, you will waste some power. but.. current linux behavior is to spread. so we can only make it worse. > > Yeah, hard numbers would be nice to see. > > If I had a powerful laptop, I'd kill irq balancing, and all but periodic > load balancing, and expect to see a positive result. I'd expect to see a negative result ;-) -- 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/