Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Saving power by cpuevacuationsched_max_capacity_pct=n

[Vaidyanathan Srinivasan]

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> [2009-05-13 15:14:57]:

> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 18:41 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> 
> > * Peter Zijlstra wanted more justifications for throttling at the core
> >   level.  Throttling may be a resource management problem rather than
> >   scheduler/load balancer
> 
> No, I mandate that it be thermal management. Any other reason and you've
> got a NAK.

Hi Peter,

Yes, I understand your objection.  Your want throttling to be done for
the purpose of thermal management only.  The primary purpose for
throttling should be thermal management (power savings may be
a side-effect)

What I meant in the above comment was that the implementation for
throttling could be solved using resource management framework,
cpuset/cgroup rather than biasing the load balancer to avoid work on
a particular core.

I am open to ideas for a clean and easy framework for core level
throttling.

Thanks,
Vaidy


--
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/