* Mike Chan <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-04-21 18:32:22]: > 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. > > > > That said, I really really dislike this approach, I would much rather > > see it tie in with power aware scheduling. > > I may have missed this on lkml but are there any on-going community > efforts to power aware scheduling? Yes, mostly in power aware task placement and task consolidation in large SMP systems and also some timer consolidation to improve low power idle residency. There are some tuning and optimizations in cpuidle governor that is related to power management but not core scheduler. As Peter mentioned, most of them may not apply to uni processor systems. --Vaidy _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
