[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061023205643.GA13990@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:56:43 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Russ Anderson <rja@....com>
Cc: linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Mixed Madison and Montecito system support
Cc: linux-kernel for generic bit of this change. Rest of patch was
posted to linux-ia64: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ia64&m=116070997529216&w=2
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:25:58PM -0500, Russ Anderson wrote:
> int sched_create_sysfs_power_savings_entries(struct sysdev_class *cls)
> {
> - int err = 0;
> + int err = 0, c;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> - if (smt_capable())
> - err = sysfs_create_file(&cls->kset.kobj,
> + for_each_online_cpu(c)
> + if (smt_capable(c)) {
> + err = sysfs_create_file(&cls->kset.kobj,
> &attr_sched_smt_power_savings.attr);
> + break;
> + }
> #endif
What if you booted an all-Madison system, and then hot-plugged some
Montecitos later? Either we'd need the hotplug cpu code to run through
this routine again to re-test whether any cpu has multi-thread support
(it doesn't look like it does that now).
Or perhaps it would be simpler to dispense with this test and always
call sysfs_create_file() here (still inside CONFIG_SCHED_SMT) so that
the hook is always present to tune the scheduler (even if it may be
ineffective on a no-smt system)?
-Tony
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists