[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080908135834.GH26079@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 15:58:34 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vatsa <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
David Collier-Brown <davecb@....com>,
Tim Connors <tconnors@...ro.swin.edu.au>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n
> 1. Detailed documentation
Messy code cannot be really made good with documentation. It's
not that your patches are that messy, it's more that it makes
something already overcomplicated even worse.
> 2. Cleanup the group_min and group_leader stuff in
> find_busiest_group()
I think one issue is that there are general too many special cases
that completely change the algorithm especially for power saving.
Perhaps it would make sense to refactor the code a bit and then
use different high level code paths for those? I assume that
would make it all simpler and easier to understand.
The other alternative would be to dynamically change the domains
so that a generic graph walker without knowledge of power savings
could DTRT in all cases. But I assume that would be much harder.
-Andi
--
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