On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:09:22 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Before: > > CPU0 ______||| || |___________| || || |_____ > > CPU1 _________||| || |_______| || |_______ > > > > After: > > > > CPU0 ______||| || |___________| || || |_____ > > CPU1 ______||| || |___________| || |_______ > > > > The goal is to have overlapping idle time if the load is already > > balanced. The energy saving can be significant. > > I can see such a scheme having a fairly big impact on latency, esp. > with forced idleness such as this. That's not going to be popular for > many workloads. agreed, it would be for limited workload. the key is to identify such workloads at runtime. I am thinking to use the load average of the busiest CPU as reference for consolidation, will not go beyond that. For the patch I have today and if you play a game like this one http://www.agame.com/game/cut-the-rope -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
