Re: [discussion]sched: a rough proposal to enable power saving in scheduler [LWN.net]

From:		Arjan van de Ven <arjan-AT-linux.intel.com>
To:		Alex Shi <alex.shi-AT-intel.com>
Subject:		Re: [discussion]sched: a rough proposal to enable power saving in scheduler
Date:		Thu, 16 Aug 2012 06:57:21 -0700
Message-ID:		<502CFC41.1030501@linux.intel.com>
Cc:		Matthew Garrett <mjg59-AT-srcf.ucam.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl>, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha-AT-intel.com>, vincent.guittot-AT-linaro.org, svaidy-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>
Archive-link:		Article, Thread

On 8/15/2012 10:03 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 12:19 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:21:00PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>>
>>> power aware scheduling), this proposal will adopt the
>>> sched_balance_policy concept and use 2 kind of policy: performance, power.
>>
>> Are there workloads in which "power" might provide more performance than 
>> "performance"? If so, don't use these terms.
>>
> 
> 
> Power scheme should no chance has better performance in design.

ehm.....

so in reality, the very first thing that helps power, is to run software efficiently.

anything else is completely secondary.

if placement policy leads to a placement that's different from the most efficient placement,
you're already burning extra power...

(Log in to post comments)