Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 00/14] sched: packing tasks

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 11/11/2013 05:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:33:45AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> tl;dr :-) Still trying to wrap my head around how to do that weird
> topology Vincent raised..
>
> > Question for Peter/Ingo: do you want the scheduler to decide on which
> > C-state a CPU should be in or we still leave this to a cpuidle
> > layer/driver?
>
> I think the can leave most of that in a driver; right along with how to
> prod the hardware to actually get into that state.
>
> I think the most important parts are what is now 'generic' code; stuff
> that guestimates the idle-time and so forth.
>
> I think the scheduler simply wants to say: we expect to go idle for X
> ns, we want a guaranteed wakeup latency of Y ns -- go do your thing.

Hi Peter,

IIUC, for full integration in the scheduler, we should eradicate the 
idle task and the related code tied with it, no ?

> I think you also raised the point in that we do want some feedback as to
> the cost of waking up particular cores to better make decisions on which
> to wake. That is indeed so.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


--
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
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/