δΊ 9/7/14, 4:47, Abel Vesa ει:
For a while now, I've started studying the power aware scheduling problem.
And like many other rookies out there I took all the lkml mails related
and read them all (well, almost all) and I saw that there are some
debating on the implementation.I even look over the implementation
proposed of Preeti U Murthy. I also worked (just for fun) for a while on
some ideas of my own (nothing worth sharing, yet) but I have problem
understanding the design requirements. Here is one.
Some of you (even Ingo) said that the scheduler should be the one to
manage the cpu P/C states. In this case the governors of the cpuidle and
cpufreq would not make any sense anymore. Does that mean they will not
be a part of this scheduling solution anymore?
CPUIDLE and CPUFREQ are used for cpu power saving when related CPU is
not busy.
Scheduling is coordinate the system load and cpu load. Currently.
Scheduling has no much
idea of CPUIDLE/CPUFREQ status, then may give task to a cpu which in
poor latency or poor
powersaving status. That leads to poor latency and high cost of power.
The power aware scheduling target is to know and coordinate the
cpuidle/cpufreq in scheduling.
Then tasks will be assigned to a cpu unit with better
latency/powersaving consideration.
_______________________________________________
linaro-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-kernel
--
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/
