On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 17:08 -0700, Salman wrote: >> As we discussed earlier this year, Google has an implementation that it >> would like to share. I have finally gotten around to porting it to >> v2.6.33 and cleaning up the interfaces. It is provided in the following >> messages for your review. I realize that when we first discussed this >> idea, a lot of ideas were presented for enhancing it. Thanks alot for >> your suggestions. I haven't gotten around to implementing any of them. > > .33 is way too old to submit patches against. Will bump up the version when I refresh the change. > > That said, I really really dislike this approach, I would much rather > see it tie in with power aware scheduling. I think I can see your point: there is potentially better information about the power consumption of the CPU beyond the time it was busy. But please clarify: is your complaint the lack of use of this information or are you arguing for a deeper integration into the scheduler (I.e. implementing it as part of the scheduler rather than an independent thread) or both? > > _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
