On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:35:52PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 09:03 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>
> > If I understand correctly (though also suffering turkey OD), the idea is
> > to offload work to more energy-efficient CPUs.
>
> This is determined by a CPU that isn't running the idle task? Is it
> because a CPU that just woke up may be running at a lower freq, and thus
> not as efficient? But pushing off to another CPU may cause cache misses
> as well. Wouldn't that also be a factor in efficiencies, if a CPU is
> stalled waiting for memory to be loaded?
Two different microarchitectures -- same instruction set (at user level,
anyway), but different power/performance characteristics. One set is
optimized for performance, the other for energy efficiency. For example,
ARM's big.LITTLE architecture.
> I should also ask the obvious. Has these patches shown real world
> efficiencies or is this just a theory? Do these patches actually improve
> battery life when applied?
I must defer to Viresh on this one.
Thanx, Paul
> Just asking.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
