On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 03:53:52PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 03:42:42PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > Right, I agree that we should preferably do the normal thing for U ~= 1. > > We can restructure the wake-up path to follow that pattern, but we need > > to know U beforehand to choose the right path. U isn't just > > get_cpu_usage(prev_cpu) but some broader view of the of the cpu > > utilizations. For example, prev_cpu might be full, but everyone else is > > idle so we still want to try to do an energy aware wake-up on some other > > cpu. U could be the minium utilization of all cpus in prev_cpu's > > sd_llc, which is somewhat similar to what energy_aware_wake_cpu() does. > > Yeah, or a setting in the root domain set by the regular periodic load > balancer; that already grew some mojo to determine this in a patch I > recently commented on.
Yes, I was thinking something like that too. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
