[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1361367469.10155.34.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:37:49 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc: 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, efault@....de, 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 11/15] sched: add power/performance balance allow flag
On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 20:04 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> >> @@ -5195,6 +5197,8 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq
> >> *this_rq,
> >> .idle = idle,
> >> .loop_break = sched_nr_migrate_break,
> >> .cpus = cpus,
> >> + .power_lb = 0,
> >> + .perf_lb = 1,
> >> };
> >>
> >> cpumask_copy(cpus, cpu_active_mask);
> >
> > This construct allows for the possibility of power_lb=1,perf_lb=1, does
> > that make sense? Why not have a single balance_policy enumeration?
>
> (power_lb == 1 && perf_lb == 1) is incorrect and impossible to have.
>
> (power_lb == 0 && perf_lb == 0) is possible and it means there is no any
> balance on this cpu.
>
> So, enumeration is not enough.
Huh.. both 0 doesn't make any sense either. If there's no balancing, we
shouldn't be here to begin with.
--
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