Re: [RFC 2/2] sched/fair: prefer a CPU in the "lowest" idle state

[Michael Wang]

On 01/31/2013 03:40 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> But AFAIK the number of states in cpuidle is usually less than 10 so maybe
>>> we can change the weight then, but there's no promise...
>>
>> And I just got another case we should take care:
>>
>> 	group 0		cpu 0			cpu 1
>> 			power index 8		power index 8
>>
>>
>> 	group 1		cpu 2			cpu 3
>> 			power index 0		load 15
>>
>> so load of group 0 is 16 and group 1 is 15, but group 0 is better...
> 
> Maybe it's not.  The cpus in group 0 are in a lower power state so that
> there will be a benefit to select cpu 2 from the power' PoV IMHO.  Also
> such a low power state has a longer exit latency so that we should
> choose cpu2 to get a better performance and it's the basic idea of this
> patchset I believe.

Well, this case is just to notify that, we may face the comparison
between load and index, not between index and index, I just doubt there
won't be a rule which could take care both, besides, comparison between
load and index is strange...

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
> --
> 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/
> 

--
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/