[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50880795.4030609@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:51:57 +0530
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <pjt@...gle.com>, <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC 6/6] ARM: sched: clear SD_SHARE_POWERLINE
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> The ARM platforms take advantage of packing small tasks on few cores.
> This is true even when the cores of a cluster can't be powergated
> independently.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> index 26c12c6..00511d0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> @@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ static inline void update_cpu_power(unsigned int cpuid, unsigned int mpidr) {}
> */
> struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
>
> +int arch_sd_share_power_line(void)
> +{
> + return 0*SD_SHARE_POWERLINE;
> +}
Making this selection of policy based on sched domain will better. Just
gives the flexibility to choose a separate scheme for big and little
systems which will be very convenient.
Regards
Santosh
--
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