Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection

[Jacob Pan]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:09:22 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Before:
> > CPU0 ______||| ||  |___________| || || |_____
> > CPU1 _________||| ||  |_______| || |_______
> > 
> > After:
> > 
> > CPU0 ______||| ||  |___________| || || |_____
> > CPU1 ______||| ||  |___________| || |_______
> > 
> > The goal is to have overlapping idle time if the load is already
> > balanced. The energy saving can be significant.  
> 
> I can see such a scheme having a fairly big impact on latency, esp.
> with forced idleness such as this. That's not going to be popular for
> many workloads.
agreed, it would be for limited workload. the key is to identify such
workloads at runtime. I am thinking to use the load average of
the busiest CPU as reference for consolidation, will not go beyond
that.
For the patch I have today and if you play a game like this one
http://www.agame.com/game/cut-the-rope
--
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/