On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 03:33:58AM +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > In any case, even with turbo frequencies, switching power use is > > probably an order of magnitude higher than leakage current power use, > > on any marketable chip, so we should concentrate on being able to > > cover this first order effect (P/work ~ V^2), before considering any > > second order effects (leakage current). > > Just so that people are aware... We'll have to introduce thermal > constraint management into the scheduler mix as well at some point. > Right now what we have is an ad hoc subsystem that simply monitors > temperature and apply crude cooling strategies when some thresholds are > met. But a better strategy would imply thermal "provisioning".
There is already work going on to improve thermal management: http://lwn.net/Articles/599598/ The proposal is based on power/energy models (too). The goal is to allocate power intelligently based on performance requirements. While it is related to energy-aware scheduling and I fully agree that it is something we need to consider, I think it is worth developing the two ideas in parallel and look at sharing things like the power model later once things mature. Energy-aware scheduling is complex enough on its own to keep us entertained for a while :-) Morten -- 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/
