On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:33:00PM -0800, Suresh B wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:26:54AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > This is really ugly, sorry :( > > hm. myself and others too thought it was a simple and nice idea.
The idea is not bad. I won't guarantee mine will be as good or better, but I think it is sensible to try implementing the simplest approach first, so we can get a baseline to justify more complexity against... Your code just needs work, but if it really produces good results then it should be able to be made into a mergeable patch. > > My suggestion for handling this was to increase the maximum balance > > interval for an idle CPU, and just implement a global shutdown when > > the entire system goes idle. > > > > The former should take care of the power savings issues for bare metal > > hardware, and the latter should solve performance problems for many idle > > SMP guests. It should take very little code to implement. > > coming to max balance interval will be challenging. It needs to save > power and at the same time respond to load changes fast enough. Yep. > > If that approach doesn't cut it, then at least we can have some numbers > > to see how much better yours is so we can justify including it. > > > > If you are against my approach, then I can have a try at coding it up > > if you like? > > Sure. If you can provide a patch, I will be glad to provide power and > performance comparision numbers with both the approaches. OK that would be good. I'll see if I can code something up by next week. Thanks, Nick - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
