On 19 February 2013 11:29, Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 February 2013 16:40, Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/18 Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org:
On 18 February 2013 15:38, Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
I pasted
the build of the sched_domain will not corrupt the
initialization state
Change since V1:
- remove the patch for SCHED softirq on an idle core use case as it was
a side effect of the other use cases.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/core.c |4
On 22 February 2013 13:32, Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:29:16AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On my smp platform which is made of 5 cores in 2 clusters, I have the
nr_busy_cpu field of sched_group_power struct that is not null when the
platform
On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
The cpu_load of this CPU is updated before starting the load balance
of each other idle CPUs. We should instead update the cpu_load of the
balance_cpu.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched
Wrong button make me removed others guys from the thread.
Sorry for this mistake.
On 13 September 2012 09:56, Mike Galbraith efa...@gmx.de wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 09:44 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 September 2012 09:29, Mike Galbraith efa...@gmx.de wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08
On 10 July 2012 15:42, Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 14:35 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
May be the last one which enable ARCH_POWER should also go into tip ?
OK, I can take it.
Hi Peter,
I can't find the patch that enable ARCH_POWER in the tip tree
On 13 September 2012 14:07, Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 11:17 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 10 July 2012 15:42, Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 14:35 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
May be the last one which enable
On 15 August 2012 13:05, Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl wrote:
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 20:21 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
Since there is no power saving consideration in scheduler CFS, I has a
very rough idea for enabling a new power saving schema in CFS.
Adding Thomas, he always delights
On 16 August 2012 07:03, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 08/16/2012 12:19 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:21:00PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
power aware scheduling), this proposal will adopt the
sched_balance_policy concept and use 2 kind of policy: performance,
On 17 August 2012 10:43, Paul Turner p...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl
wrote:
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 20:21 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
Since there is no power saving consideration in scheduler CFS, I has a
very rough idea for enabling a
On 21 August 2012 02:58, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 08/20/2012 11:36 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
What you want it to keep track of a per-cpu utilization level (inverse
of idle-time) and using PJTs per-task runnable avg see if placing the
new task on will exceed the utilization
the use of NR_CPUS and use nr_cpu_ids instead
- Remove broken power estimation of x86
Peter Zijlstra (1):
sched, x86: Remove broken power estimation
Vincent Guittot (4):
ARM: topology: Add arch_scale_freq_power function
ARM: topology: factorize the update of sibling masks
ARM: topology
Add infrastructure to be able to modify the cpu_power of each core
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org
---
arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 38 +-
1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion
...@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org
---
arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 48 +---
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel
will run on big cores and short ones on LITTLE cores.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org
---
arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 153
1 file changed, 153 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm
From: Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl
The x86 sched power implementation has been broken forever and gets in
the way of other stuff, remove it.
For archaeological interest, fixing this code would require dealing with
the cross-cpu calling of these functions and more importantly, we need
to
Heteregeneous ARM platform uses arch_scale_freq_power function
to reflect the relative capacity of each core
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/features.h |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/features.h b
On 9 July 2012 12:55, Shilimkar, Santosh santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
Vincent,
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Vincent Guittot
vincent.guit...@linaro.org wrote:
Use cpu compatibility field and clock-frequency field of DT to
estimate the capacity of each core of the system and to update
On 9 July 2012 15:00, Shilimkar, Santosh santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Vincent Guittot
vincent.guit...@linaro.org wrote:
On 9 July 2012 12:55, Shilimkar, Santosh santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
Vincent,
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Vincent Guittot
On 9 July 2012 16:37, Shilimkar, Santosh santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Vincent Guittot
vincent.guit...@linaro.org wrote:
On 9 July 2012 15:00, Shilimkar, Santosh santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Vincent Guittot
vincent.guit
On 10 July 2012 13:27, Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 11:27 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
This patchset creates an arch_scale_freq_power function for ARM, which is
used
to set the relative capacity of each core of a big.LITTLE system. It also
removes
On 20 November 2012 15:28, Morten Rasmussen morten.rasmus...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:51:00PM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 9 November 2012 18:13, Morten Rasmussen morten.rasmus...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
I have experienced suboptimal buddy selection
On 27 November 2012 06:19, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Tejun,
On 26 November 2012 22:45, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 04:08:45PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
I'm pretty skeptical about this. queue_work() w/o explicit CPU
assignment has always
On 27 November 2012 14:59, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 19:18 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 27 November 2012 18:56, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
A couple of things. The sched_select_cpu() is not cheap. It has a double
loop of domains/cpus
On 27 November 2012 16:04, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 15:55 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 27 November 2012 14:59, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 19:18 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 27 November 2012 18:56, Steven Rostedt
On 17 December 2012 16:24, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
The scheme below tries to summaries the idea:
Socket | socket 0 | socket 1 | socket 2 | socket 3 |
LCPU| 0 | 1-15 | 16 | 17-31 | 32 | 33-47 | 48 | 49-63 |
buddy conf0 | 0 | 0| 1 | 16| 2 | 32| 3 |
On 21 December 2012 06:47, Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:11:11AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
+static bool is_buddy_busy(int cpu
On 21 December 2012 09:53, Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org wrote:
On 21 December 2012 06:47, Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:11:11AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 12/12
kernel:
Vincent Guittot (6):
Revert sched: introduce temporary FAIR_GROUP_SCHED dependency for
load-tracking
sched: add a new SD SHARE_POWERLINE flag for sched_domain
sched: pack small tasks
sched: secure access to other CPU statistics
sched: pack the idle load balance
ARM: sched
This reverts commit f4e26b120b9de84cb627bc7361ba43cfdc51341f
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
include/linux/sched.h |8 +---
kernel/sched/core.c |7 +--
kernel/sched/fair.c |3 +--
kernel/sched/sched.h |9 +
4 files changed, 4
Look for an idle CPU close to the pack buddy CPU whenever possible.
The goal is to prevent the wake up of a CPU which doesn't share the power
domain of the pack buddy CPU.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 18 ++
1 file changed
The ARM platforms take advantage of packing small tasks on few cores.
This is true even when the cores of a cluster can't be power gated
independantly. So we clear SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN at MC and CPU level.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
plugging a CPU, which implies that we could use the max value
instead of reading runnable_avg_period after 345ms. During the starting phase,
we must ensure a minimum of coherency between the fields. A simple rule is
runnable_avg_sum = runnable_avg_period.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit
packing some tasks in
a group of CPUs in order to power gated the other groups instead of spreading
the tasks. The default behavior of the scheduler is to spread tasks so the
flag is set into all sched_domains
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
arch/ia64/include/asm
be exploited as per the demands of the HW architecture.
Linus definitely disagree such ideas. :) So, need to summaries the
logical beyond all hardware.
example is the small task packing (and spreading) for which Vincent
Guittot has posted a patchset[1] earlier and so has Alex now.
Sure. I just thought
On 13 December 2012 03:24, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
This new flag SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN is used to reflect whether groups of CPU
in
a sched_domain level can or not reach a different power state. If clusters
can
be power gated
On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
During the creation of sched_domain, we define a pack buddy CPU for each CPU
when one is available. We want to pack at all levels where a group of CPU can
be power gated independently
On 13 December 2012 15:25, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 12/13/2012 06:11 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
During the creation of sched_domain, we define a pack buddy CPU for each
On 13 December 2012 15:53, Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org wrote:
On 13 December 2012 15:25, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 12/13/2012 06:11 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote
On 14 December 2012 02:46, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 12/13/2012 11:48 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 December 2012 15:53, Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 13 December 2012 15:25, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 12/13/2012 06:11 PM, Vincent Guittot
On 14 December 2012 08:45, Mike Galbraith bitbuc...@online.de wrote:
On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 14:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
On 12/14/2012 12:45 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Do you have further ideas for buddy cpu on such example?
Which kind of sched_domain configuration have you for such
On 16 December 2012 08:12, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 12/14/2012 05:33 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 14 December 2012 02:46, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 12/13/2012 11:48 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 December 2012 15:53, Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
Hi Preeti,
On 15 November 2012 17:54, Preeti U Murthy pre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Currently the load balancer weighs a task based upon its priority,and this
weight consequently gets added up to the weight of the run queue that it is
on.It is this weight of the runqueue that sums up to a
to detect such intialization step
and to not modify the NOHZ_IDLE flag
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/fair.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 3d0686c..1bf7c87 100644
idle state while booting all CPUs
- when a CPU is unplug and/or replug
Vincent Guittot (3):
sched: fix nr_busy_cpus with coupled cpuidle
sched: fix init NOHZ_IDLE flag
sched: fix update NOHZ_IDLE flag
kernel/sched/core.c |1 +
kernel/sched/fair.c |2 +-
kernel/time/tick
-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/time/tick-sched.c |2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
index a402608..e19bbc9 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
@@ -526,6 +526,8 @@ void
-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/core.c |1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 5dae0d2..05058e8 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -5817,6 +5817,7 @@ static void
On 1 October 2012 05:47, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 1 October 2012 06:02, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
It isn't about the CPU being actually idle?
No. Being idle only from scheduler's perspective. :)
Also, if it's only about timers, shouldn't it be enough to implement
On 2 January 2013 05:22, Preeti U Murthy pre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have been looking at how different workloads react when the per entity
load tracking metric is integrated into the load balancer and what are
the possible reasons for it.
I had posted the integration
On 8 January 2013 07:06, Preeti U Murthy pre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 01/07/2013 09:18 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 2 January 2013 05:22, Preeti U Murthy pre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have been looking at how different workloads react when the per entity
load
On 27 July 2013 12:42, Hanjun Guo hanjun@linaro.org wrote:
In the cpu topology information, we define topology_physical_package_id()
as cpu socket id, which means that the socket id is the idenfication for
physical processor, not for a cluster in a cpu die.
On ARM64 platform, multi
and/or
CONFIG_SCHED_SMT are enable. So you should also add these configs for
arm64 so the scheduler can use it
Vincent
For ARM64, we can get the topology from the MPIDR register which defines the
the affinity of processors.
This patch is mainly based on arch/arm/kernel/topology.c written by
Vincent
On 29 July 2013 12:15, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com wrote:
On 29/07/13 10:46, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 27 July 2013 12:42, Hanjun Guo hanjun@linaro.org wrote:
Power aware scheduling needs the cpu topology information to improve the
cpu scheduler decision making
On 29 July 2013 11:54, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:46:06AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 27 July 2013 12:42, Hanjun Guo hanjun@linaro.org wrote:
Power aware scheduling needs the cpu topology information to improve the
cpu scheduler decision making
On 10 July 2013 13:11, Morten Rasmussen morten.rasmus...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:10:15AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On 7/9/2013 8:55 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
+ mod_delayed_work_on(schedule_cpu(), system_wq, dwork,
+
On 13 July 2013 12:23, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Peter,
(Morten's away for a week, I'll try cover some bits in the meantime)
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 07:49:09AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 04:55:29PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
This patch
On 20 June 2013 04:18, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
They are the base values in load balance, update them with rq runnable
load average, then the load balance will consider runnable load avg
naturally.
We also try to include the blocked_load_avg as cpu load in balancing,
but that cause
On 2 August 2013 03:50, Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote:
Now checking whether this cpu is appropriate to balance or not
is embedded into update_sg_lb_stats() and this checking has no direct
relationship to this function. There is not enough reason to place
this checking at
On 5 November 2013 15:06, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:52:15PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
The function arch_sd_local_flags is used to set flags in sched_domains
according to the platform architecture. A new flag SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN is
also created
On 5 November 2013 23:27, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 03:57:23PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Your proposal looks fine for me. It's clearly better to move in one
place the configuration of sched_domain fields. Have you already got
an idea about how
Hi,
During the Energy-aware scheduling mini-summit, we spoke about benches
that should be used to evaluate the modifications of the scheduler.
I’d like to propose a bench that uses cyclictest to measure the wake
up latency and the power consumption. The goal of this bench is to
exercise the
of this email
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:54:30AM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
During the Energy-aware scheduling mini-summit, we spoke about benches
that should be used to evaluate the modifications of the scheduler.
I’d like to propose a bench that uses cyclictest to measure the wake
up
On 8 November 2013 01:04, Rowand, Frank frank.row...@sonymobile.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
Thanks for creating some benchmark numbers!
you're welcome
On Thursday, November 07, 2013 5:33 AM, Vincent Guittot
[vincent.guit...@linaro.org] wrote:
On 7 November 2013 12:32, Catalin Marinas
On 7 November 2013 15:04, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:33:43PM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 7 November 2013 12:32, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:54:30AM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
During
| CPU0 |
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/core.c |1 +
kernel/sched/fair.c | 70 ++
kernel/sched/sched.h |5
3 files changed, 76 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched
the arch dependent function to set/clear SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN for ARM
platform
Vincent Guittot (14):
sched: add a new arch_sd_local_flags for sched_domain init
ARM: sched: clear SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN
sched: define pack buddy CPUs
sched: do load balance only with packing cpus
sched: add
). With a default value set to max, we will use the idlest group even if we
skip the local_group.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/fair.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index
.
The sd_pack_group and sd_pack_domain are used to quickly check if a power
leader should be used in the packing effort
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 162 ++-
1 file changed, 149 insertions(+), 13 deletions
;
};
};
};
...
};
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h |4
arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 50 ++-
2 files changed, 53
The knob is used to set an average load threshold that will be used to trig
the inclusion/removal of CPUs in the packing effort list.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
include/linux/sched/sysctl.h |9 +
kernel/sched/fair.c | 26
load_idx is used in find_idlest_group but initialized in select_task_rq_fair
even when not used. The load_idx initialisation is moved in find_idlest_group
and the sd_flag replaces it in the function's args.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 12
, the
activity level is set above the cpu_power in order to reflect the overload of
The cpu
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 26 ++
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index
-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
arch/ia64/include/asm/topology.h |3 ++-
arch/tile/include/asm/topology.h |3 ++-
include/linux/sched.h|1 +
include/linux/topology.h | 11 ---
kernel/sched/core.c | 10 --
5 files changed, 21
.
This latter use case is not manage by the current version of the patch because
it implies that the cpuidle drivers set the wake up latency instead of the
cpuidle core.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
Conflicts:
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
---
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
This new field power_available reflects the available capacity of a CPU
unlike the cpu_power which reflects the current capacity.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 +++---
kernel/sched/sched.h |3 ++-
2 files changed, 13
the power
domain of the pack buddy CPU.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 80 ---
1 file changed, 76 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 5547831
The SCHED_PACKING_TASKS config is used to enable the packing tasks mecanism
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
init/Kconfig | 11 +++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
index 3ecd8a1..4d2b5db 100644
--- a/init/Kconfig
Create a statistic structure that will be used to share information with
other frameworks like cpuidle and cpufreq. This structure only contains the
current wake up latency of a core for now but could be extended with other
usefull information.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit
and a performance point of view. We should take into account
the wake up latency of an idle CPU when the scheduler looks for the best CPU
to use for a waking task.
The wake up latency of a CPU is computed into a load that can be directly
compared with task load and other CPUs load.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
On 8 November 2013 22:12, Rowand, Frank frank.row...@sonymobile.com wrote:
On Friday, November 08, 2013 1:28 AM, Vincent Guittot
[vincent.guit...@linaro.org] wrote:
On 8 November 2013 01:04, Rowand, Frank frank.row...@sonymobile.com wrote:
snip
The Avg figures look almost stable IMO
On 11 November 2013 17:38, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:33:45AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
My understanding from the recent discussions is that the scheduler
should decide directly on the C-state (or rather the deepest C-state
possible since we don't
On 12 November 2013 11:32, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:52:18PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
+int sched_proc_update_packing(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
+ void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
+ loff_t *ppos)
+{
+ int
On 12 November 2013 11:55, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:44:15AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 12 November 2013 11:32, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:52:18PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
+int
On 12 November 2013 11:34, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:52:19PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
This new field power_available reflects the available capacity of a CPU
unlike the cpu_power which reflects the current capacity.
- sdg-sgp-power_orig
On 11 November 2013 12:33, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
(cross-posting to linux-pm as it was agreed to follow up on this list)
snip
So, IMO, defining the power topology is a good starting point and I
think it's better to separate the patches from the energy
/11/5/239
[3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/5/449
Vincent Guittot (6):
sched: remove unused SCHED_INIT_NODE
sched: rework of sched_domain topology definition
sched: s390: create a dedicated topology table
sched: powerpc: create a dedicated topology table
sched: add a new
BOOK level is only relevant for s390 so we create a dedicated topology table
with BOOK level and remove it from default table.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
arch/s390/include/asm/topology.h | 11 +--
arch/s390/kernel/topology.c | 25
Create a dedicated topology table for ARM which will create new level to
differentiate CPUs that can or not powergate independantly from others.
The patch gives an example of how to add domain that will take advantage of
SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit
SD_ASYM_PACKING in the sd_flags of SMT level
during the boot sequence and before the build of the sched_domain topology.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 35 +++
kernel/sched/core.c |6 --
2 files
balancing level between
group of CPUs than can power gate independantly. The default behavior of the
scheduler is to spread tasks across CPUs and groups of CPUs so the flag is set
into all sched_domains.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
include/linux/sched.h |1 +
kernel
sequence of the sched_domain will take care of
removing useless levels like those with 1 CPU and those with the same CPU span
and relevant information for load balancing than its child .
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
arch/ia64/include/asm/topology.h | 24
arch/s390
not used since new numa scheduler init sequence
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
arch/metag/include/asm/topology.h | 27 ---
1 file changed, 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/metag/include/asm/topology.h
b/arch/metag/include/asm/topology.h
On 6 March 2014 01:09, Dietmar Eggemann dietmar.eggem...@arm.com wrote:
On 05/03/14 07:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
We replace the old way to configure the scheduler topology with a new
method
which enables a platform to declare additionnal level (if needed).
We still have a default topology
On 6 March 2014 06:38, Dietmar Eggemann dietmar.eggem...@arm.com wrote:
On 05/03/14 07:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Create a dedicated topology table for ARM which will create new level to
differentiate CPUs that can or not powergate independantly from others.
The patch gives an example of how
On 6 March 2014 07:17, Dietmar Eggemann dietmar.eggem...@arm.com wrote:
On 05/03/14 07:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
This patchset was previously part of the larger tasks packing patchset
[1].
I have splitted the latter in 3 different patchsets (at least) to make the
thing easier
On 6 March 2014 20:31, Dietmar Eggemann dietmar.eggem...@arm.com wrote:
On 06/03/14 09:04, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 6 March 2014 07:17, Dietmar Eggemann dietmar.eggem...@arm.com wrote:
On 05/03/14 07:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
This patchset was previously part of the larger tasks packing
On 8 March 2014 13:40, Dietmar Eggemann dietmar.eggem...@arm.com wrote:
On 07/03/14 02:47, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 6 March 2014 20:31, Dietmar Eggemann dietmar.eggem...@arm.com wrote:
On 06/03/14 09:04, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 6 March 2014 07:17, Dietmar Eggemann dietmar.eggem
On 11 March 2014 11:08, Preeti U Murthy pre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On 03/05/2014 12:48 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Create a dedicated topology table for handling asymetric feature.
The current proposal creates a new level which describes which groups of CPUs
take adavantge
On 11 March 2014 11:31, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:32:35PM +0800, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Never got the new name DIE for CPU? Might confuse people when they use
/proc/sys/kernel/sched_domain/cpuX/domainY/name or
sched_domain_debug_one().
In fact
The tmp value has been already calculated in:
scaled_busy_load_per_task =
(busiest-load_per_task * SCHED_POWER_SCALE) /
busiest-group_power;
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions
101 - 200 of 3961 matches
Mail list logo
