[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP245DX8b45Nj5SAwtLivp_vMKpwfeUrqnR2sqjnVyqiRd61gg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:46:07 +0530
From: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power
Adding Peter to the discussion..
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
> I work to link the cpu_power of ARM cores to their frequency by using
> arch_scale_freq_power. It's explained in the kernel that cpu_power is
> used to distribute load on cpus and a cpu with more cpu_power will
> pick up more load. The default value is SCHED_POWER_SCALE and I
> increase the value if I want a cpu to have more load than another one.
> Is there an advised range for cpu_power value as well as some time
> scale constraints for updating the cpu_power value ?
> I'm also wondering why this scheduler feature is currently disable by default ?
>
> Regards,
> Vincent
In discussions with Vincent regarding this, I've wondered whether
cpu_power wouldn't be better renamed to cpu_capacity since that is
what it really seems to describe.
--
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