[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51248F59.2060900@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:54:49 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
CC: peterz@...radead.org, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de, pjt@...gle.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [patch v5 10/15] sched: packing transitory tasks in wake/exec
power balancing
On 02/20/2013 04:43 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> >
>> > Sounds reasonable too.
>> >
>> > I have no idea of the of the decision now.
>> > And guess many guys dislike to use a knob to let user do the choice.
> Nobody likes seeing yet more knobs much, automagical is preferred.
> Trouble with automagical heuristics usage is that any heuristic will
> inevitably get it wrong sometimes, so giving the user control over usage
> is IMHO a good thing.. and once we give the user the choice, we must
> honor it, else what was the point?
>
> Anyway, fwiw, I liked what I saw test driving the patch set..
>
>> > What's your opinions, Peter?
> ..but maintainer opinions carry more weight than mine, even to me ;-)
:) Yes, maintainers usually heard enough arguments and can balance them...
--
Thanks Alex
--
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