[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo===J9EeZXcDa2cmUifuwinSVnQsOs1u-cg==tfbs_-0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:22:00 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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, 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 19 March 2013 18:00, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 20:53 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * This routine returns the nearest non-idle cpu. It accepts a
>> bitwise OR of
>> + * SD_* flags present in linux/sched.h. If the local CPU isn't idle,
>> it is
>> + * returned back. If it is idle, then we must look for another CPU
>> which have
>> + * all the flags passed as argument as set.
>> + */
>> +int sched_select_cpu(unsigned int sd_flags)
>
> So the only problem I have is that you expose the SD_flags to !sched
> code. The only proposed user is in the workqueue code and passes 0.
>
> Why not leave out the sd_flags argument and introduce it once you start
> using it; at which point we can argue on the interface.
Yes, that can be done. Will fix it up.
--
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