On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 11:29:04AM +0000, Charles Garcia-Tobin wrote: > Actually shooting myself in the foot here, Krait is not such a great > example because although you can use difference between frequencies > you are less likely to use different tunables (not inconceivable > but unlikely). The best examples systems are multi cluster and > hereterogeneous systems, like the recently announced Samsung Exynos 5 > octa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exynos_(system_on_chip). We will see > more systems like this appearing, sporting low power cores combined > with high performance ones, all running at the same time. I appreciate > this is all very new, but more will come, and the requirement to have > different tunables per cluster is very real. In ARM on our own multi > cluster test chip, using an experimental version of this approach, we > have seen good improvements in power consumption without compromising > performance. Ok, thanks for giving this insight, this is useful. Question: do you need the granularity of that control to be per cpu (with that I mean what linux understands under "cpu," i.e. logical or physical core) or does one governor suffice per a set of cores, or as you call it, a cluster? > (Apologies ahead for any bit my mail server appends, not much I can do > about it) Yeah, my condolences :-) > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments > are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the > intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not > disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or > store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. Leaving it in, in case you haven't seen how it looks like :-) -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
