Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] load-balancing and cpu_power -v2

[Andreas Herrmann]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:34:31AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> A more complete version, one that compiles and mostly works on the
> simple tests to which it was subjected.
> 
> It still lacks integration with APERF/MPERF because that stuff was
> hidding in some acpi driver instead of placed in arch code for general
> consumption.. will fix.
> 
> Also, SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER seems redundant in the face of sd->level ==
> SD_LV_SIBLING, should we remove the SD_flag or depricate the level?
> 
> Anyway, have at it, poke holes and report issues.

Tested it (to a certain extend).
Found no performance degradation (on 1P, 2P, 4P systems). (One could
think performance might slightly degrade due to more frequent
__cpu_power updates).

Issue that I see is that switching between scheduling policies has no
effect on already running tasks:

- tasks that are already distributed among sockets are _not_
  concentrated on one socket when switching from performance to
  power_savings scheduling

- tasks utilizing a socket are _not_ distributed among sockets when
  switching from power_savings to performance policy

This applies to modification of sched_mc_power_savings. And I think
one of above scenarios is already broken in tip/master w/o your
patches.

Otherwise especially wrt to integration of APERF/MPERF this seems to
be a good approach.


Regards,
Andreas

-- 
Operating | Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
  System  | Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34, 85609 Dornach b. München, Germany
 Research | Geschäftsführer: Andrew Bowd, Thomas M. McCoy, Giuliano Meroni
  Center  | Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis München
  (OSRC)  | Registergericht München, HRB Nr. 43632


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/