Comment by nine_k

> So, when powered by AC power, schedule everything on P cores when possible, schedule processes that eat a lot of CPU on P cores, same for any process with a negative nice value.

Even when plugged in, you may have thermal limitations. P cores will chew through your power budget more aggressively than E cores. For latency-sensitive workloads you do want to emphasize the P cores, but when throughput is the goal you'll usually be better off not ignoring the E cores, and not trying to run the P cores at high frequency where they're much less efficient. Intel started adding E cores to consumer chips in large part so they could score better on throughput-oriented multithreaded benchmarks like Cinebench; they're decent at compiling code, too, but you'll still want the P core for the linker.

That's not really how nice levels have worked traditionally, and would disallow specifying "run on Performance cores, but yield to other processes quickly".

I may be completely wrong, but I read that E cores are not power efficient, rather they are die space efficient.

>when powered by AC power, schedule everything on P cores when possible

Sometime I feel like that is undesirable. It may make system consume more power, thus more heat output and louder.