Re: [RFC PATCH 06/16] arm: topology: Define TC2 sched energy and provide it to scheduler

[Morten Rasmussen]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:43:26PM +0100, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:42:18PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:02:51PM +0100, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:22:49AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 03:33:58AM +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In any case, even with turbo frequencies, switching power use is 
> > > > > > > probably an order of magnitude higher than leakage current power use, 
> > > > > > > on any marketable chip, so we should concentrate on being able to 
> > > > > > > cover this first order effect (P/work ~ V^2), before considering any 
> > > > > > > second order effects (leakage current).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Just so that people are aware... We'll have to introduce thermal 
> > > > > > constraint management into the scheduler mix as well at some point.  
> > > > > > Right now what we have is an ad hoc subsystem that simply monitors 
> > > > > > temperature and apply crude cooling strategies when some thresholds are 
> > > > > > met. But a better strategy would imply thermal "provisioning".
> > > > > 
> > > > > There is already work going on to improve thermal management:
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/599598/
> > > > > 
> > > > > The proposal is based on power/energy models (too). The goal is to
> > > 
> > > Can you please point me to the other piece of code which is using
> > > power/energy models too?  We are considering having these models within
> > > the thermal software compoenents. But if we already have more than one
> > > user, might be worth considering a separate API.
> > 
> > The link above is to the thermal management proposal which includes a
> > power model. This one might work better:
> > 
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/45000
> > 
> > The power/energy model in this energy-aware scheduling proposal is
> > different. An example of the model data is in patch 6 (the start of this
> > thread) and the actual use of the model is in patch 11 and the following
> > patches. As said below, the two proposals are independent, but there
> > might be potential for merging the power/energy models once the
> > proposals are more mature.
> 
> Morten,
> 
> For the power allocator thermal governor, I am aware, as I am reviewing
> it. I am more interested in other users of power models, a part from
> thermal subsystem.

The user in this proposal is the scheduler. The intention is to
eventually tie cpuidle and cpufreq closer to the scheduler. When/if that
happens, they might become users too.
--
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/