Re: [patch v5 11/15] sched: add power/performance balance allow flag
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Feb 20 2013 - 08:48:16 EST
On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 14:37 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 20:04 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> > >> @@ -5195,6 +5197,8 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq
> > >> *this_rq,
> > >> .idle = idle,
> > >> .loop_break = sched_nr_migrate_break,
> > >> .cpus = cpus,
> > >> + .power_lb = 0,
> > >> + .perf_lb = 1,
> > >> };
> > >>
> > >> cpumask_copy(cpus, cpu_active_mask);
> > >
> > > This construct allows for the possibility of power_lb=1,perf_lb=1, does
> > > that make sense? Why not have a single balance_policy enumeration?
> > (power_lb == 1 && perf_lb == 1) is incorrect and impossible to have.
> > (power_lb == 0 && perf_lb == 0) is possible and it means there is no any
> > balance on this cpu.
> > So, enumeration is not enough.
> Huh.. both 0 doesn't make any sense either. If there's no balancing, we
> shouldn't be here to begin with.
Also, why is this in the lb_env at all, shouldn't we simply use the
global sched_balance_policy all over the place? Its not like we want to
change power/perf on a finer granularity.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/