Hope not. To me, "computing power" means megaflops/sec, or DhrystonesIt refers to group's processing power. Perhaps "horsepower" is better term.
(don't ask) or whatever. If that's what "cpu_power" is referring to then
the name is hopelessly ambiguous with peak joules/sec and a big renaming is
Well ... I don't think "horsepower" is a step in the right direction.
Andrew's point was over the word "power", not "cpu". The term
"cpu_power" suggested to him we were concerned with the power supply
watts consumed by a group of CPUs. Indeed, both those concerned with
laptop battery lifetimes, and the air conditioning tonnage needed
for big honkin NUMA iron might have reason to be concerned with the
power consumed by CPUs.
Changing the word "cpu" to "horse", but keeping the word "power",
does nothing to address Andrew's point. Rather it just adds more
confusion. We are obviously dealing with CPUs here, not horses.
My understanding is that the "cpu_power" of the cpus in a sched group
is rougly proportional to the BogoMIPS of the CPUs in that group.