On 11 November 2013 17:38, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:33:45AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> My understanding from the recent discussions is that the scheduler >> should decide directly on the C-state (or rather the deepest C-state >> possible since we don't want to duplicate the backend logic for >> synchronising CPUs going up or down). This means that the scheduler >> needs to know about C-state target residency, wake-up latency (I think >> we can leave coupled C-states to the backend, there is some complex >> synchronisation which I wouldn't duplicate). >> >> Alternatively (my preferred approach), we get the scheduler to predict >> and pass the expected residency and latency requirements down to a >> power driver and read back the actual C-states for making task >> placement decisions. Some of the menu governor prediction logic could >> be turned into a library and used by the scheduler. Basically what >> this tries to achieve is better scheduler awareness of the current >> C-states decided by a cpuidle/power driver based on the scheduler >> constraints. > > Ah yes.. so I _think_ the scheduler wants to eventually know about idle > topology constraints. But we can get there in a gradual fashion I hope. > > Like the package C states on x86 -- for those to be effective the > scheduler needs to pack tasks and keep entire packages idle for as long > as possible.
That's the purpose of patches 12, 13 and 14. To get the current wakeup latency of a core and use it when selecting a core > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/