[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpokB3yeXuLVe_0fWuMRVMKWJktDU7UrMepfd+3N0GmNtMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:14:11 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: pjt@...gle.com, paul.mckenney@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
tj@...nel.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, venki@...gle.com,
mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, robin.randhawa@....com,
Steve.Bannister@....com, Liviu.Dudau@....com,
charles.garcia-tobin@....com, Arvind.Chauhan@....com,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/7] sched: Create sched_select_cpu() to give preferred
CPU for power saving
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> 2013/3/18 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>:
>> +static inline int sched_select_cpu(unsigned int sd_flags)
>> +{
>> + return raw_smp_processor_id();
>
> I feel this should be symetric with the requirement of having
> preemption disabled as in the CONFIG_NO_HZ version. This should be
> smp_processor_id().
Yes, my fault.
>> +int sched_select_cpu(unsigned int sd_flags)
>
> It would be nice to have some more precise naming. sched_select_busy_cpu() ?
You are correct that name can be improved but busy may give it a different
meaning. Maybe sched_select_non_idle_cpu()?
Thanks for your instantaneous review :)
--
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